Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[OnlyJapantown]

From reading the reviews, a number have described it as being of a similar vein to his other gangster movies (one compared it to The Departed). I have to say this surprised me as I was expecting it to be slower and more reserved, owing to the subject matter and the exaggeratedly reverent tone of the recent panel at Cannes. If this is a typical Marty gangster movie the entertainment value will be high, but this seems at odds with all the deferential talk about the Osage in the movie's publicity. Will be interesting to watch this and see where the movie stands compared to his other works.

EDIT: one thing I'd mention, I've read the book and it is extremely fast-paced, just like your typical Scorsese gangster picture. I just didn't anticipate this movie being described as similar to those movies due to the subject matter being quite different (yes, the plot involves organised crime, but they're committing acts much different to other gangster movies).

[Fenway55]

Originally Posted by travisbickle

The words used from miss Gladstone in the Cannes video (you can literally see the mental illness in her eyes like all the other "wokeys") "who else is going to challenge people to challenge their own complicity in white supremacy in such a platform except for this man here". Silence from Marty...

The last shot from the trailer: "Can you find the wolves in this picture" shows room full of evil whiteys.

It's clear this movie has an agenda.

Edit: And of course we all know Native American's past is completely non violent. They were all Angels.

I don't think any group is going to come off as looking all that great in this movie. Keeping in mind that I am overanalyzing a trailer because I am such a big Scorsese fan and am looking forward to this movie....

What I saw was a metaphor that unnecessarily beat you over the head. First it introduced the concept of "there are so many hungry wolves" (whitey getting off the train). While it was just a voiceover and who knows how the actual film will portray that scene, I liked it. Thought it was well done.

Anyone with half a brain gets the metaphor at this point. IMHO it should have been left at that. Following it up with just one "Can you find the wolves in this picture" was more than sufficient, if not too much. But IMHO repeating that line once more went too far.

Regardless, I will go into the film with a clean slate.

[Michael1989]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Surprised it has been this quiet after De Niro's comments.

I've only just seen the comments but actors talking politics can risk alienating the audience that may have gone to see this. I don't think anyone can deny that. Regardless of my political thoughts, I'll still be seeing this

[Cremildo]

Amazing how reactionary types are bothered by what they perceive as some insidious "agenda" in movies dealing with social injustice but never utter a peep about movies whose conservative underlying message they happen to agree with - copaganda (Dirty Harry, End of Watch, Die Hard), American imperialism (a lot of super-hero movies), British imperialism (James Bond), patriotism and exceptionalism (ID4, almost every Hollywood war movies) etc.

[UltraMario9]

Originally Posted by Purplenoon

Definitely read the book immediately: it's killer stuff, pardon the slight pun. Scorsese has stated that the movie concentrates on a different angle than the author has, even if the basic story remains the same. Also, it should be no surprise what happens to native Americans when the white man moves in. It is a beautifully written book, and deserves to be read, The movie will be a far different animal imho, and absolutely worth seeing as well. Marty & co. never let us down. Also, after reading it, I had a whole new view of Oklahoma.

Okay I'm sold! I'll get straight to it after I finish "A Soldier of the Great War"

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Amazing how reactionary types are bothered by what they perceive as some insidious "agenda" in movies dealing with social injustice but never utter a peep about movies whose conservative underlying message they happen to agree with - copaganda (Dirty Harry, End of Watch, Die Hard), American imperialism (a lot of super-hero movies), British imperialism (James Bond), patriotism and exceptionalism (ID4, almost every Hollywood war movies) etc.

I do not and will never get why people are bothered by any of these things when it comes to movies.

Movies tell stories. That's it.

And one does not necessarily have to agree with (what would be) the real life implications of the story they're telling.

In this case, I have a very good idea of what kind of people are bothered with the story this movie is telling. Who gives a damn. Screw those people.

[Levon]

Guys, it's not woke. They literally used being white Anglo Protestants as a way to justify their actions. The Osage were deemed incompetent and were given guardians to oversee their fortune, and the guardians were all white.

If it makes you feel any better it's a white former Texas Ranger who plays an instrumental part in the story. Along with other white members of the FBI and white lawyers.

In fact, stories that emerged at the time were racially charged. Quoting from memory but a newspaper article ran a story about "lo, the poor Indian". 'Lo' being a derogatory term for a Native American.

Again quoting from memory

"Lo the poor Indian, who now spends his money on fancy cars, and when they blow a tire, they leave it where it is and they buy a new one".

This was contrasted in these articles with wealthy white business men, who spend their money wisely and would never waste it, unlike Lo.

If this upsets you, don't go see it. All your doing is making yourself look ridiculous getting upset about an historical drama.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Amazing how reactionary types are bothered by what they perceive as some insidious "agenda" in movies dealing with social injustice but never utter a peep about movies whose conservative underlying message they happen to agree with - copaganda (Dirty Harry, End of Watch, Die Hard), American imperialism (a lot of super-hero movies), British imperialism (James Bond), patriotism and exceptionalism (ID4, almost every Hollywood war movies) etc.

While you are not wrong in regard to how some react to films where they perceive left-leaning agenda is present, but the issue with your statement is very few people watch the films you have cited as a proxy for the truth and or market them as a history lesson.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Levon

If it makes you feel any better it's a white former Texas Ranger who plays an instrumental part in the story. Along with other white members of the FBI and white lawyers.

The problem with your take is that the hero as written in Killers Of The Flower Moon, and some would say the truth of the story, is a white FBI agent, and that his role in the film has been reduced to an afterthought.

I guess the question now is simply can you identify why the white FBI agent was removed from this picture?

[Levon]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

The problem with your take is that the hero as written in Killers Of The Flower Moon, and some would say the truth of the story, is a white FBI agent, and that his role in the film has been reduced to an afterthought.

I guess the question now is simply can you identify why the white FBI agent was removed from this picture?

Yeah, because Martin Scorsese said that the lawmen coming in and saving the day has been done to death. He felt the story for the film would be better served focusing on Mollie Burkhart and Ernest Burkhart and their love story and eventual betrayal.

It doesn't detract from the overall contributions of Tom White which will no doubt be displayed in this film. We can see Leonardo DiCaprio in what looks like an interrogation scene in the trailer, I wonder who will be in that scene alongside him?

In your opinion, why has the white FBI agent been removed from this picture?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Levon

Yeah, because Martin Scorsese said that the lawmen coming in and saving the day has been done to death. He felt the story for the film would be better served focusing on Mollie Burkhart and Ernest Burkhart and their love story and eventual betrayal.

It doesn't detract from the overall contributions of Tom White which will no doubt be displayed in this film. We can see Leonardo DiCaprio in what looks like an interrogation scene in the trailer, I wonder who will be in that scene alongside him?

In your opinion, why has the white FBI agent been removed from this picture?

He is played by Jesse Plemmons and in the trailer and the movie as a whole, just not the lead.

[Levon]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

He is played by Jesse Plemmons and in the trailer and the movie as a whole, just not the lead.

I'm not saying he is the lead. I'm aware of who plays him.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yer man who replied to me is implying Jesse Plemmons character is being removed because he is white.

I'm saying despite him not being the focus, his contributions to the overall story will be important, i.e the investigation.

People are having a meltdown because Leo in the trailers says "can you see the wolves in this picture" whilst a bunch of white people are on the screen. Now this film has a left wing agenda and is showing whitey bad, woke, blah, blah, blah.

Captain Tom is white, not bad.

I think the only agenda this film has is to tell the story of the Osage murders. But De Nero said something about Trump, wah, wah, wah.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Levon

I'm not saying he is the lead. I'm aware of who plays him.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yer man who replied to me is implying Jesse Plemmons character is being removed because he is white.

I'm saying despite him not being the focus, his contributions to the overall story will be important, i.e the investigation.

People are having a meltdown because Leo in the trailers says "can you see the wolves in this picture" whilst a bunch of white people are on the screen. Now this film has a left wing agenda and is showing whitey bad, woke, blah, blah, blah.

Captain Tom is white, not bad.

I think the only agenda this film has is to tell the story of the Osage murders. But De Nero said something about Trump, wah, wah, wah.

I agree with you. The comment I highlighted in your post made it sound like you were saying he wasn’t in it at all but I was just saying he is in it. I wasn’t saying he was the lead or anything just that he is in it. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[Levon]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I agree with you. The comment I highlighted in your post made it sound like you were saying he wasn’t in it at all but I was just saying he is in it. I wasn’t saying he was the lead or anything just that he is in it. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Misunderstanding, there.

All good, pal!

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by Winslow Leach

I'll take THE DEPARTED over CASINO.

CASINO is much better film than THE DEPARTED.

[Hindustani]

Originally Posted by spf781

https://www.darkhorizons.com/flower-...-longest-film/

Runtime: 234 minutes.

Slap a small intermission in there, we’ll all be fine.

I demand another missing 6 mins in that running time.

Oh well.....hopefully Apple releases KOTFM Directors cut with solid 240 mins running time.

[LordoftheRings]

▪︎ https://discussingfilm.net/2023/05/2...t-performance/

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Levon

Yeah, because Martin Scorsese said that the lawmen coming in and saving the day has been done to death. He felt the story for the film would be better served focusing on Mollie Burkhart and Ernest Burkhart and their love story and eventual betrayal.

It doesn't detract from the overall contributions of Tom White which will no doubt be displayed in this film. We can see Leonardo DiCaprio in what looks like an interrogation scene in the trailer, I wonder who will be in that scene alongside him?

In your opinion, why has the white FBI agent been removed from this picture?

First, don't assume I've got a 'side,' or in fact, there is a 'side.' There's just the book, which is acclaimed for its historical accuracy, and the movie, which based on a number of pre-production statements from the filmmakers themselves, deviates from the book by not only significantly minimizing the role of the FBI agent, but also eliminating half the story, which is centered on the role his family played in the West.

To be clear, it's not a little thing. The juxtaposition with the White family story and the story of the Osage is the gestalt of the entire book.

To be honest, when I first heard of Leo switching roles and asking for script changes, it really didn't make much sense to me, nor if you are to believe what has been reported about the film, by many in Hollywood.

Now that I've seen the trailer, it's clear to me that this film is not simply minimizing the role of the main character in the book, it's telling a completely different story based on a subset of the characters.

So, to your point, I haven't seen the film so I can't tell you if the 'overall contributions' of Tom White are part of the story or not, but it doesn't appear so.

And, to be clear, that's okay, provided you wanted to tell the same story but focus on different characters.

That said, if you choose to include a scene from the film within the trailer that is composed exclusively of the white residents of Osage County while making the statement about wolves because as filmmakers you want to illustrate the racial aspect of the story, and then purposely minimize the story of Tom White and the FBI because the historical truth doesn't fit the narrative arc or how you choose to position the film, well, fool around with the truth and find out what happens.

And I don't say that with taking a 'side.' It's a phenomenal book that clearly articulates the tremendous racial and criminal injustice that was fostered by those in power against the Osage, and having Tom White and the FBI seek to bring those criminals to justice doesn't diminish the story of injustice by one iota.

Why Scorsese just didn't follow the book is beyond me. So, if there's a side I'm taking, it's the book, and none other.

[LordoftheRings]

How Scorsese, DiCaprio and De Niro Made ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Levon

Guys, it's not woke. They literally used being white Anglo Protestants as a way to justify their actions. The Osage were deemed incompetent and were given guardians to oversee their fortune, and the guardians were all white.

If it makes you feel any better it's a white former Texas Ranger who plays an instrumental part in the story. Along with other white members of the FBI and white lawyers.

In fact, stories that emerged at the time were racially charged. Quoting from memory but a newspaper article ran a story about "lo, the poor Indian". 'Lo' being a derogatory term for a Native American.

Again quoting from memory

"Lo the poor Indian, who now spends his money on fancy cars, and when they blow a tire, they leave it where it is and they buy a new one".

This was contrasted in these articles with wealthy white business men, who spend their money wisely and would never waste it, unlike Lo.

If this upsets you, don't go see it. All your doing is making yourself look ridiculous getting upset about an historical drama.

Correct. The Osage had white people working for them that were seething with hatred and anger. White interlopers came in and basically killed them and stole their oil.

That's actually why I do think that the stinger of "Can you spot the wolves in this picture" the second time works even better. You bet your ass I can spot the wolves.


I'm also about a quarter into the book and it is a great read so far.