Split Decision: "Killers of the Flower Moon"
Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 6:00PM No two people feel the exact same way about any film. Thus, Team Experience is pairing up to debate the merits of this year’s Oscar movies. Here's Juan Carlos Ojano and Nathaniel Rogers on Killers of the Flower Moon...
CARLOS: Hi, Nathaniel! So excited to talk to you about this film. Confession time: this is the first time I've seen a Martin Scorsese film on the big screen, even though his works (Taxi Driver, Casino, The Departed, The Wolf of Wall Street, Silence, The Irishman) usually end up in my favorite films of their respective years. Maybe he is one of my favorite directors? But my respect for him goes beyond 'favorite'. This is also my first time seeing Leonardo DiCaprio (one of my favorite actors) on the big screen, with my "relationship" with him now spanning from Titanic to this. And my gosh, after months of buzz after its Cannes premiere, I can say I was floored and destroyed. Just in awe. I think it is one of the most powerful films I've seen from last year…
Watching this searing take on this slow-burning genocide of the Osage committed by White usurpers, a horrifying stain in (American) history waiting to be brought to the mainstream, has forced me to confront a lot of issues about the past as well as the present. My country also has a longstanding history of colonial rule and reigns of terror with a high level of impunity, so this narrative has especially hit me hard. And for Scorsese to take no prisoners in approaching this story - in stripping it off of cheap thrills and overt satisfaction and by really taking the time - what is left is a harrowing reckoning of how evil works in humans. It's a maturation of the themes he has been exploring for most of his career, but with a sensitivity and reflection that I don't think I've seen from him before with this much veracity.
Frankly, it's necessarily upsetting. Methinks Scorsese may have delivered one of his best works ever with this.
But how about you, what is your relationship with Scorsese the filmmaker and his career and how did you exactly respond to this one?
NATHANIEL: Hello Juan Carlos, as you and everyone reading might have surmised given the title of this series, I am not a fan of the picture! I hate raining on other people's parades so I just want to say that's not the point of the series so much as making room for divergent opinions; Art is subjective! Let's start with my relationship to Martin Scorsese. The first one I ever saw was in the movie theater and was something of an anomaly -- any After Hours fans out there? -- and then I started renting previous stuff and usually keeping up with stuff as it came out in theaters. My relationship to him has run hot and cold ever since. Some of his films I find electrifying and fascinating (Age of Innocence, King of Comedy, Taxi Driver, The Departed, Cape Fear, etcetera) but others I find self-indulgent and agonizingly repetitive (Casino, The Irishman, Gangs of New York, The Wolf of Wall Street, etcetera) and the rest of his oeuvre is somewhere in the middle but usually has both of those things going for it or detracting from it.
While I find the history in Flower Moon repulsive (as you mentioned) and Scorsese's take on large scale complicity righteously impressive that wasn't enough to keep me on the plus side of this movie. I've never been one to place too much stock in what story I am hearing or what message it's conveying. Very generally speaking I'm a lot more interested / responsive to execution: storytelling, images, craft, performances, and all of that. And for those reasons, primarily, this was middling Scorsese for me.
There weren't many images that grabbed hold of me (it feels unusually staid in that respect by Scorsese standards) and the only craft element that really stands out is the scoring. But I think most of my reservations are about the screenplay and the performances. I found most of the acting sketchy or underimagined; I don't fault Lily Gladstone here but I think she is undercut by the material constantly, and both DeNiro and DiCaprio I had major issues with because they played every single scene in similar ways. Where was the modulation? I genuinely think this is the worst DiCaprio has been in a long long time. He's all wrong for the part and then he strips himself of his own charisma (the one thing that could have bridged the gap between the character and himself) Ernest desperately needs to be charismatic for Molly's behavior to make any sense on a story level.
CARLOS: Huh. That's very interesting because the two aspects of the film that you have singled out - screenplay and performances - are probably the ones that drew me in the most to this film. I think its structure is punishing, subverting audience expectations and turning it into an anti-mystery. I think the characters were multifaceted right from the page, serving the actors with incredible space and juice to explore their human nature.
DeNiro is deeply unnerving as a conniving criminal mastermind that puts up an endearing father figure façade to the Osage, exploring his character's duplicity through expert modulation (and the depths of his evil is played with terrifying levels of variation). Regarding DiCaprio, I'm even compelled to say that this is one of his best? I think he's made bold choices in his take of Ernest, a man consumed by greed via complicity, making for an incredibly troubling and complex character. The concept of the "banality of evil" has been thrown around quite a lot during this awards season because of several films in contention, but I'd argue that DiCaprio's Ernest Burkhart is a terrifying synthesis of that concept. And I still see the charisma, but maybe that's just me being me. Who knows.
As for Gladstone, oh my. She gives my favorite performance of the year. I think it's an incredibly rich and internalized performance of immense grief, heartbreak, but also intelligence, tenacity, and fortitude that compelled me right from her voiceover near the beginning to her final exit. I think the screenplay offers up a self-reflective admission to the perspective they took and the intention of taking on that viewpoint.
And this is now my very personal take on it: I think the screenplay and direction gives Gladstone a lot of space and trust to enrich Mollie even further through rhythm, physicality, expression (and its inverse), and more. This is not to say that I think the material underserved her, but I think it's a demonstration of Scorsese's perceptiveness in knowing how much Gladstone could bring to this role and still staying true to the essence of Mollie and the women of that time (as Gladstone as stated in interviews). I'll never forget the image of Gladstone's face projected onto the big screen, and me, a small filmgoer on the receiving end of her glorious screen presence. Love, love, love it.
NATHANIEL: Maybe your take on the structure as punishment is one of the things holding me back -- I don't want to be punished at the movies! I'm half kidding. I know there's a place for discomfort at the movies and I have loved a lot of difficult or unpleasant films in my life as a cinephile. Perhaps it's the length of the punishment? Scorseses fondness for long running times (he hasn't made a movie under two hours in literally decades despite being prolific!) only exarcebates my issue with his love of repetition. I realize these are my issues with his predilections as a storyteller but so many times when I'm watching his movies I think "you've already made that point three scenes ago!". Or, this is the eighth scene (in the case of Killers of the Flower Moon) showing me Molly sick in bed since the poison has taken hold.
Though I should admit that I do think the movie is well-paced considering its length and I was never bored, just impatient. I feel like I've seen everything these actors have to say about their characters by hour two.The exception is oddly DiCaprio (who, again, for me is the only "bad" performance in the film) He is definitely more interesting in the second half but still I think he fails to fully imagine why a man would slowly kill the person he "loves"... and then be sad but not remorseful which is a theoretically interesting personal puzzle for an actor to piece together. It's like Ernest cannot comprehend his own evil or even connect it or his actions to the grief.
We'll have to agree to disagree on DeNiro who for me is solely coasting on DeNiroisms and never once challenges the viewer or complicates his character. He lets you know upfront how blatantly evil the guy is (the anti-mystery you're talking about) but he isn't even presenting the character as "two-faced" exactly... it's all one face and we're supposed to believe half the town believes the false face (which he presents as identical to the true face). As a viewer I could never accept for a single sequence that any of the Osage would fall for this blatantly false "good neighbor" act. It had the terrible I'm-sure-not-intentional result of me wondering if the filmmakers thought of the Osage as being kind of dim.
This is also somewhat my problem with the way the movie exhibits Mollie in relation to her poisoner. Had Scorsese/DiCaprio presented Ernest as charismatic or sexually desirable, Lily's innate intelligence as an actor would have made Mollie's blindness to Ernest's very-obvious ill intentions much more interesting instead of confusing. I think she's best in the movie's early sequences when she is actually playing to this idea a bit. In the frisky date scene and in the aftermath as she gossips with the women she's really doing interesting things with the material, presenting this smart woman who is toying with the idea of falling for a gold digger; she almost seems to be doing it for her own amusement which is just great and interesting stuff. Later in the film she's primarily tasked with only grief and depletion and I found that very sad but not cathartic or riveting the way grief can sometimes be on the big screen.
So anyway, I'm happy to agree that Lily Gladstone is very good in the picture. I just wish the movie was more interested in her. Why does it preference the villains in screentime? Why is their story more interesting to Scorsese than the fate of the Osage? Before seeing it, I had imagined a picture that was actually about the Osage. I had heard that it was shifting the focus of the book which is more about the investigation of the genocide and I wrongly expected the focus to shift to the Osage. Perhaps this is just my error of expectations. Sometimes you have an alternate version of a movie in your head and the disconnect comes.
I'm sorry to be so negative. Here's what I did love: the music, Lily in the first half, Cara Jade Myers and a few of the other side characters who all kept me on edge since their scenes were always more 'this scene could go in any direction!' than DiCaprio and DeNiro's scenes. I also loved the ending which is jarring but fascinating... and it gives the Scorsese showmanship I was craving.
So those were the things I loved even though I am not a fan... As someone who loves the movie, did you have any reservations about it anywhere?
CARLOS: Does this mean that I like being punished? Oh no. But seriously, I don't mind long runtimes by default as long as I understand the reason why. I am okay with repetition as long as it has a point or is the point. And I am mesmerized with Thelma Schoonmaker's work here: the film flows with an intoxicating and unpredictable rhythm, one that embraces abruptness and disruption as well as repetition, stasis, and detours to prioritizing mood and atmosphere over forward narrative momentum as long as it serves the story being told. The scriptwriter and editor in me was just in awe of how Scorsese/Schoonmaker constructed this film overall.
But you know what: I'll have to agree with you there. Ernest cannot comprehend his own evil. Just abiding by William Hale's rationalization for their plotting, morally compartmentalizing as he functions within his relationship with Mollie, and then inflicting pain to the person he "loves". Especially with the last sentence, I get that, though I do not want to expound on that any further (and no, this isn't me self-incriminating at all). It's a troubling complexity that makes him the perfect pawn for Hale. I think that's a demonstration of the banality of evil. Evil takes place not just because of masterminds like Hale, but because of the obedience of people like Ernest. As for De Niro, again I do not see that. His two-facedness is not within the change in façade, but on how that same façade functions very differently. The same fatherly/friendly figure to the Osage would also be the same person who sells to Ernest the idea of changing the flow of money. The shift is something deeper and that disturbs the hell out of me. For that, I think De Niro is extremely effective.
I also did not get the assertion that the film paints an image of the Osage as dim. Not at all. I believe the characterization of the Osage (as individuals and as a group) have been of intelligence through dignity and silence, one thing that the White people in the story mistakes as stupidity. Even Hale echoes this sentiment. This is where the coyote/wolves theme comes in. That is the one thing going against the Osage: they are good people and the White people of this story are not. The Osage have a read of what the White people want and have devised ways to navigate the oppressive mechanisms imposed upon them (for example, by marrying to White people instead of dealing with rigid guardianship). However, the White people of the narrative takes it a step further and implements extrajudicial measures to rob the Osage (which is in line with factual events). I don't know. I didn't associate the victims' helplessness in being targets of violence with any assumptions of lack of intelligence, but it says more to the extent of the ruthlessness of the real-life White people. Also, I get the charisma that Mollie saw in Ernest (it's still DiCaprio after all) so no notes for me.
I understand the divisive response to the film's perspective favoring Ernest (and Hale), but I get it. This is how Scorsese can tell this story best. There is an acknowledgement of what he can give as a White storyteller, but he uses it and maximizes it. In this case, I do not think perspective meant giving privilege to the villains but giving condemnation even further. It's a damning position to take. No catharsis available, not even to Mollie's storyline. It hurts to watch and it should. As for that ending, yes! Glad you loved that ending. I was like "he went there". As for Scorsese, it's an act of humility and admission, a surrendering of one's limitations and offering the best that he could give in getting this story told in the mainstream. I think that's a bold move as a storyteller. And then seeing the Osage in a dancing circle, surviving and thriving despite everything they went through in history. It just floored me.
But to answer your question: I don't have reservations with this film (I'm surprised with this as well). But this is me speaking based on my experience with the film back in October. I'm really curious though, given your response to this film: do you see yourself revisiting this film sometime in the future?
NATHANIEL: I actually loved the bit about the wolves and I wish the movie had risked more theatricality to dig in to that. "Can you spot the wolves in this picture?" reminded me for a moment of the Pied Piper throughline in The Sweet Hereafter and I got excited but then Scorsese drops it.
I have to take issue with excusing Scorsese from approaching the story from an Osage perspective rather than focusing on the white men, simply because he's a white man. I know this isn't a popular opinion these days, when people are demanding that artists stay exclusively in their own identification lane. But I personally think art suffers a lot when artists don't use their imagination to see outside of themselves -- whether you're talking gender, race, religion, age, sexuality, or whatever. I hate reading a novel, for example, and thinking to myself "all of these characters sound exactly the same. They're all the writer!" In short, I'm just mad that the Osage characters were given such short shrift. There were plenty of indigenous people involved in this movie who Scorsese or co-screenwriter Eric Roth could have turned to make sure to check their own limitations/ blindspots had they had more interest in exploring the indigenous perspective.
Every single time the movie decided to check back in on the Osage I was excited like, 'Okay, here we go' only for the scene to be over in a flash and then immediately cut back to White Genocidal Scheming from two actors I felt were under-delivering. You barely get any time with the people the story is affecting! And because of that, for me, the movie was constantly brushing up against the "noble savage" problem you see in too many 20th century movies that feature a minority character (usually just one!) who are reduced to Saint or Victim or Hero or Martyr but rarely full humans with complexities and flaws and a full life you can picture just outside the main story.
Thank god for Mollie/Lily. She's all we get, really, in terms of this and even that is taken away as she is reduced to Silent Victim for a good chunk of the running time.
I now understand and acknowledge that you see this last reduction as a damning strength of the movie but it personally drove me crazy. I only saw it as a refusal to engage beyond Violent Criminal White Guys which is, of course, Scorsese's default interest. All that said I'm genuinely glad your experience with this movie was so much better. This series reminds me (and hopefully everyone reading) that art is endlessly subjective and there's always another way to look at a movie.
As for a second watch. I've revisited plenty of movies I didn't love for various reasons -- usually related to "projects" So... maybe. Especially if Lily Gladstone wins the Oscar, then a revisit will eventually be mandatory for any Best Actress retrospectives of the 2020s.
CARLOS: Well, my fingers will be crossed until March 10th as I watch the Oscars while wearing my Lily Gladstone shirt as I hope she wins Best Actress (in a truly nail-biting race). When that happens, that would give me the chance to look forward to your take on the film on a Best Actress retrospective in a few years' time. I will be waiting then.
Previous Split Decisions:
Reader Comments (12)
I liked the movie but Nate, your comments on Mollie were on point and exactly my problem with the film.
The way she's presented at first shows an intelligence (that Gladstone is very good at portraying) that as the movie progresses ends up being a false promise. How can someone so observing get herself in the posititon she ends up in? I agree it would help if DiCaprio would've been more charismatic, so you can attribute it to blind love, but that wasn't the case.
As it stands, it ends up feeling like the wrong directing choices. How much does she know? How much does she let herself believe? Those are interesting questions but I don't think we're asking them because Scorsese wants us to. It's confusing.
I have to agree mostly with Nat.
Carlos I mostly agree about Gladstone but I never bought her being so gullible to De Niro and DiCaprio's schemes,I don't think she's the best of the 5 nominees and would probably put her 4th.
It was tiring not seeing their side of the story,DiCaprios character is just not interesting enough to spend 3 hrs with.
Martin's last film to focus solely on a female was in the 70's,every film is seem through masculine eyes.
Scorsese's films are getting longer and longer and i'm sure he could get his message over in just over 2 and a half hours most other skilled movie makers do.
I found the performances of De Niro and DiCaprio to be obvious and both miscast,I know he's directed them both to some of their best performances that doesn't mean they are right for everything.
What would a Day Lewis,Dafoe or even Harrison Ford done with De Niro's duplicitous role or Christopher Abbott, or Casey Affleck with DiCaprio's or even Colin Farrell.
I thought the cinematography very striking at times and Robbie Robertsons score would be getting my vote as best of the year,
Good to hear opposing voices,this one of the best series at TFE.
Split... It's Scorsese, period. Kidding. But really, I can't talk. I loved everything Scorsese did except The Aviator. It's one of the directors of the great American cinema that I think is disappearing. A lot of extras, a car race scene that must have been expensive and could have been cut, historical interest. For me it was a joy.
@Nat-After Hours is in my Scorsese top 5.
It's far from a perfect film, but I can't say a bad word about the performances. I think DiCaprio was very brave for going in a character-actor direction, channelling people like Arthur Kennedy and Ernest Borgnine. The fact that he is borderline repulsive makes his relationship with Molly even more carnal. You don't buy him as a seductive type, but you surely can see why they keep having kids.
And on De Niro, I find him wonderfully cool, discreetly evil, terribly casual about all the awful things he's doing. He could be acting in The Zone of Interest.
Cal Roth: It's interesting that your take on De Niro is so different than I would describe it - but I love him in it too. I agree with the cool/casual, but I saw something different than "discreetly evil".
I really felt while watching him that he was channeling Trump. The whole "these people love me", and forcing that narrative in the most transparent ways, and it working. And then being so laid-back and honest when undercutting their interests at every opportunity.
It's not a movie that requires a lot of performance in order to make the parallels to present-day, but I thought it was a cool choice to lean into the Trumpiness, and I was surprised not to read other writers making the link.
De Niro is great as an evil man who thinks he's doing right and Di Caprio as the tortured man trying to cope with his own weakness, but of course Gladstone is even better with her tragic silence.
I'm somewhere down the middle with this film, which made this an interesting conversation to read, since I agree with points on both sides. I agree it's too long and repetitive and that a film this unpleasant should not be this long (I also found The Zone of Interest difficult in that regard and that one is only about half the length of this one).
On the other hand, I think this might be the boldest film Scorsese has made in the 21st Century (not his best, but his boldest), and given that he's going outside his comfort zone in a lot of it, I can't really fault him for seeking some familiar corners in his telling of the story, and yes, that includes having DiCaprio and DeNiro in the cast. I'm also in the camp that think both of these men are doing some exemplary work. I've always preferred DiCaprio in this more outlandish register where his penchant for showing his work as an actor works in his favor (I've said it before and I'll say it again... brooding DiCaprio is unbearable). It also makes a perfect contrast with DeNiro who is portraying a form of evil that never seems to be breaking a sweat. William Hale is so eerily comfortable with the part he's playing, which is something we've never seen from DeNiro (I honestly feel this is his best performance in a few decades).
Lily Gladstone is terrific, though I do agree she's working within the limitations of the role as written.
Richter Scale -- I love that description of De Niro's characterization as an evil that never breaks a sweat.
I like Lily Gladstone, the costuming, and the music. That's it. Not the film for me and that's ok.
100% agree with this analysis, and why the movie didn't work: She seemed to be too intelligent of a character to get so obviously swindled and nearly murdered. If that's how it happened in real life, then the film's narrative must have been altered to a distracting degree.
PREACH, Nathaniel. And join me in the lonely corner of those who really liked Maestro and really didn't like this one.
Cláudio Alves: I've rewatched scenes from KILLERS a few days ago and De Niro's performance still makes me upset on how in control he is of his demeanor. The power of his work is hard to shake off. De Niro is so at the height of his powers.