Nothing about the existence of Killers excludes the possibility for an Osage centered story to made told. This is a Martin Scorsese film in which he (yes) had Osage consultants to help with the telling of HIS film, the film Apple and financiers funded, the film audiences came out to $20+ million. It’s still a film first and foremost. Not a historical document, not a fact-based documentary…
Creatively speaking, any artist can make any film they want as they have zero social responsibility in doing so. It is a creative endeavor. The same way audiences can choose to see it or not see it. Like it or not like it. Blaming Martin Scorsese for the lack of indigenous storytellers is missing the larger point about profitability, which films are funded/succeed with American audiences.
I completely disagree with the bolded part. Taking your logic to the extremes - it would totally be okay to make a film that celebrates Hitler and his deeds. Or a film that celebrates white supremacists and KKK etc... because there is no social responsibility right? I think this is the kind of thinking that results in destructive content being put out into the world. Of course there is a social responsibility regarding the content you put out - we do not live in a bubble. We live in a socio-economic reality where discourse matters and credibly affects the lives of people.
I completely disagree with the bolded part. Taking your logic to the extremes - it would totally be okay to make a film that celebrates Hitler and his deeds. Or a film that celebrates white supremacists and KKK etc... because there is no social responsibility right? I think this is the kind of thinking that results in destructive content being put out into the world. Of course there is a social responsibility regarding the content you put out - we do not live in a bubble. We live in a socio-economic reality where discourse matters and credibly affects the lives of people.
Yeah sorry I don’t subscribe to that. I don’t like censorship. Art is art. Good or bad. It is not the responsibility of the artist to fix society or only put out peaceful stuff. It can be debated, funded or not funded, but to say some things cannot be made because of the world is absurd. If we’re talking about actually hurting people or doing illegal content on screen obviously that’s different and extreme and wrong and should be censored because we have laws. But morals? Nah. That’s not how it should ever be. Hostel has every right to exist as an art form as Moana does.
If a violent outburst like the ear thing happened in real life and some guy said “oh I love Reservoir Dogs” the blame doesn’t go on Tarantino. It goes on the parents, the support system they have… on a larger level our mental health resources.
Yeah sorry I don’t subscribe to that. I don’t like censorship. Art is art. Good or bad. It is not the responsibility of the artist to fix society or only put out peaceful stuff. It can be debated, funded or not funded, but to say some things cannot be made because of the world is absurd. If we’re talking about actually hurting people or doing illegal content on screen obviously that’s different and extreme and wrong and should be censored because we have laws. But morals? Nah. That’s not how it should ever be. Hostel has every right to exist as an art form as Moana does.
If a violent outburst like the ear thing happened in real life and some guy said “oh I love Reservoir Dogs” the blame doesn’t go on Tarantino. It goes on the parents, the support system they have… on a larger level our mental health resources.
Nobody is asking for censorship. It's the same argument people always make. There is no censorship or ask for it. But if you are going to put something out in to the world, you are not innoculated from criticism or discussion of it.
This is especially true of "art" being put out into the world. You put it out into the world to get people to react to it. And the reaction can be positive or negative.
That is what is happening here. Scorsese did what he wanted to do - without any constraints. And now people are reacting to his film.
Ability to express yourself cuts both ways - Scorsese made the film he wanted. Now people are free to call him out and criticize him for his failures in storytelling.
Nobody is asking for censorship. It's the same argument people always make. There is no censorship or ask for it. But if you are going to put something out in to the world, you are not innoculated from criticism or discussion of it.
This is especially true of "art" being put out into the world. You put it out into the world to get people to react to it. And the reaction can be positive or negative.
That is what is happening here. Scorsese did what he wanted to do - without any constraints. And now people are reacting to his film.
Ability to express yourself cuts both ways - Scorsese made the film he wanted. Now people are free to call him out and criticize him for his failures in storytelling.
Okay so you switched up here. You carved out a different section into your artists are responsible argument.
Taking criticism is different than actually being responsible.
You can say his film is racist. Doesn’t mean it is.
You can say GTA causes school shootings. Doesn’t mean it does.
You were saying you can’t make problematic art (you used a few extreme examples like KKK glorification and Hitler glorification) and put it out in the world. I disagree with that. Do I want those films? No. are they profitable? No. Will it get funded? No. But let’s say somebody independently produced one. Will people react badly towards it? Of course. Should it not be allowed to be made? Hell no.
I never said you couldn’t react to it. Art is made to be discussed, taken apart and put back together, analyzed, enjoyed… it’s also meant to cause emotions. Sometime bad emotions. It’s meant to shock, horrify, get a rise out of the audience. It’s all valid.
The artist doesn’t have a responsibility to the world is all I’m saying.
Ability to express yourself cuts both ways - Scorsese made the film he wanted. Now i am free to call him out and criticize him for what I perceived as failures in storytelling.
Ability to express yourself cuts both ways - Scorsese made the film he wanted. Now i am free to call him out and criticize him for what I perceived as failures in storytelling.
Fixed it for you.
I thought this was the rare good-faith argument about ideas without devolving into ad hominem attacks. Why stoop to that level.
After being displaced to barren landscapes in Oklahoma at the end of the 19th century, the Osage people became immensely wealthy when they were awarded headrights to the large deposits of oil that were discovered underneath their reservation. During the 1920s, an FBI investigation of a “Reign of Terror”, a serious of unsolved murders within the Osage community, revealed that the killings were due to a conspiracy orchestrated by an influential rancher, William King Hale, who had devised a plan to secure the headrights by any means necessary.
The 2023 western crime drama, Killers of the Flower Moon, directed by Martin Scorsese and based on the 2017 nonfiction book of the same name by journalist David Grann, basks in the glow of rustic wide open spaces, brought to life by cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto and Panavision custom lens techniques, but ultimately unveils its true colors as a depiction of a world where freedom is an illusion, a world where repressed souls occasionally land on fortune only to suffer when the Monopoly pieces are rearranged and the rules of the game are changed at the whim of those in power. Scorsese has always specialized in delivering calculated punches to the face of American exceptionalism, by way of films like Taxi Driver (1976), Goodfellas (1990), and Gangs of New York (2002), where the desperate respond with fury and even violence upon the supposed realization that life is a party and they did not receive an invitation, but this latest offering is perhaps his most visually arresting screen story to date, thanks to its often abrupt transitions from idyllic pastoral splendor to unflinching displays of death as Osage bodies are shown crumbled in car wrecks, discarded in forgotten ravines, or lying on beds after succumbing to a “wasting illness.”
Ernest Burkhart, a World War I veteran played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is our initial viewpoint entryway into this tale as he steps off of a train in Oklahoma to work under the guidance of his uncle, Hale, portrayed by Robert De Niro. “King Hale”, the smooth-talking cattleman who doubles as a deputy sheriff and poses as a benefactor to the Osage people, is perhaps De Niro's most nightmarish screen persona to date, nothing short of a miracle at this point in the actor's career, not because he is overtly monstrous, but because he embodies the visage of manipulative sorts whom we have all encountered at some point in our lives. De Niro's Hale stands in as the avaricious branch managers who smile warmly as they host pizza parties for their employers who are enduring a multi-year pay freeze, as the insurance CEOs who are mainly there like a good neighbor for the shareholders, and as the lemon salesmen who know the right words to grease the wheels of their ultimately disappointed customers.
Hale and those like him operate under the governance of an inherent shrewdness. Most of us are not shrewd by nature. Most of us are loyal and eager to please, always wanting to assume goodwill, but somehow always being surprised when such goodwill is absent. DiCaprio's Burkhart is no angel, but even he is cluelessly naive to his uncles machinations.
Burkhart's Osage love interest and eventual bride, Mollie, played brilliantly by Lily Gladstone, who provides a textbook example of how to act with her eyes, is not so naive, knowing right off the bat that her suitor is a “coyote” who is after her headrights money and that his uncle's blessings are a likely ploy, but she goes along and assumes goodwill because...*sigh*...what else can she do? This place, however golden and majestic under Scorsese's camera eye, is not a fairy tale world, but a lived-in setting with occupants who are resigned to the truth that the house always wins.
Killers of the Flower Moon is three hours and 26 minutes long, but it requires its run time to achieve a full realization of its mission statement. When a government agent, played by Jesse Plemons, descends on the scene during the final hour with the Bureau of Investigation, the result for us the audience is not a relief, but more of a continuation of the slow death march where belated justice provides no solace to the corpses or to the grieving after the greedy have plundered their existences. The only ray of sunshine here comes by way of the final camera shot, an understated display of the resilience of the good in the face of constant oppression, a moment similar to the epilogue of Cormac McCarthy's novel, Blood Meridian, where fenceposts are driven into the ground for new life to soldier on. I am also reminded of the jazz music that plays during the dialogue-free final moments in Taxi Driver while the streets are shown at night in a scene that I could easily watch for hours.
Like earlier Scorsese classics, I consider this one to be a flawlessly-executed five-star endeavor, although I know that I will not revisit it at home nearly as often as, say, endearingly less cerebral B movie fare like Fast Times at Ridgemont High or The Return of the Living Dead. Scorsese has publicly bemoaned the sad state of present-day cinema, with its endless superhero sequels and remakes, but, as much as I agree with him, I do not begrudge moviegoers for wanting to be entertained by films that do not demand to be seen while in a specific mood or by films that one does not feel obliged to train oneself for. I always feel as though I need to prepare mentally for a Scorsese feature, like a samurai monk who sits under an ice-cold waterfall for hours in the remote jungle before going into battle. Killers of the Flower Moon is worth the effort in full, but...three hours and 26 minutes...yeah...I know.
Last edited by The Great Owl; 10-25-2023 at 11:17 PM.
The book has touched people and the movie seems to be doing the same (just be reading some of the reactions here). That alone makes it worth it to me, maybe not perfect, but worth it.
I feel like this film will shape out to viewed similiary to Down Fall.
Last edited by eledoremassis02; 10-26-2023 at 03:15 PM.
[Show spoiler](an assistant or more likely his youngest daughter running it and typing what he says)
. But it has a list from him that has companion movies to his more recent ones and notes of explanation. There’s some for Killers and some other films.
A handful of theaters across the globe have imposed their own intermission on Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon, Deadline has confirmed, leading to intervention on the part of the Apple pic’s theatrical distributor, Paramount.
While intermissions were reportedly put in place at one Colorado theater and in numerous international territories, given the Oklahoma-set crime epic’s runtime of three hours and 26 minutes, they comprise a violation of the domestic licensing agreement for the project, Deadline hears, and have thus been swiftly shut down by the studio. But not before drawing the attention of Thelma Schoonmaker, the three-time Oscar-winning editor who has cut pictures for Scorsese since the 1960s. “I understand that somebody’s running it with an intermission which is not right,” Schoonmaker told The Standard. “That’s a violation so I have to find out about it.”
Scorsese himself previously defended Killers‘ runtime in his own interview with the Hindustan Times. Said the filmmaker, “People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours. Also, there are many people who watch theatre for three and a half hours. There are real actors on stage — you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect; give cinema some respect.”
It’s definitely not right for theatres to impose their own intermission without consent. But I don’t understand why Scorsese and co are so adamant about there not being one. Like I mentioned in a previous post, it can be easily done these days where assigned seating is the norm, and this used to be common for films that were 3 hours or more. I just watched Far From Madding The Crowd (1967) recently and there was a well-timed intermission halfway through. And the film is just under 3 hours.
Mr Scorsese, Ms Schoonmaker, I love you guys and I love the film, but maybe you should look into the half hour of f***ing trailers I had to sit through instead of complaining about a much needed intermission some theaters were courteous enough to add for their patrons. I got to the theater a half hour before the scheduled start time, then when it came, I had to sit there for another half hour of trailers before the three-and-a-half hour movie started. And one of the trailers was for a Marvel film of characters I've never heard of. In front of a Scorsese movie. ARE YOU READING THIS MARTY? A TRAILER FOR A THIRD RATE MARVEL FILM WAS PLAYED BEFORE YOUR MOVIE!!!
Seriously, too many stupid trailers. Fortunately I made it through the whole movie without having to get up. I even stayed until the credits ended, which I'm glad I did because there are some cool easter eggs and tributes in there. I don't know why Scorsese and Schoonmaker didn't just add an intermission themselves. The film is kinda structured in two parts anyway. The arrival of the Bureau of Investigation would have been a great cliffhanger/cutoff point.
Great movie. I thought it would be more of a mystery with the murders, and that there would be more of a focus on the Osage culture. The killings made me feel numb. I enjoyed the score. The scene at the Masonic lodge was so weird. I was really curious what went on in there. The runtime wasn't an issue for me. Was the opening scene supposed to be set in the present day? The movie didn't mention children being seized.
Mr Scorsese, Ms Schoonmaker, I love you guys and I love the film, but maybe you should look into the half hour of f***ing trailers I had to sit through instead of complaining about a much needed intermission some theaters were courteous enough to add for their patrons. I got to the theater a half hour before the scheduled start time, then when it came, I had to sit there for another half hour of trailers before the three-and-a-half hour movie started. And one of the trailers was for a Marvel film of characters I've never heard of. In front of a Scorsese movie. ARE YOU READING THIS MARTY? A TRAILER FOR A THIRD RATE MARVEL FILM WAS PLAYED BEFORE YOUR MOVIE!!!
Seriously, too many stupid trailers. Fortunately I made it through the whole movie without having to get up. I even stayed until the credits ended, which I'm glad I did because there are some cool easter eggs and tributes in there. I don't know why Scorsese and Schoonmaker didn't just add an intermission themselves. The film is kinda structured in two parts anyway. The arrival of the Bureau of Investigation would have been a great cliffhanger/cutoff point.
Someone who has cut films since the 1960s should remember that an intermission was once a thing on even much shorter films. Kudos to the theaters for taking the initiative, boo on Schoonmaker + Scorsese being high on his own hype and kvetching over someone solving a problem he created. If an intermission ruins the film, then how does he not blow a gasket when people pause his films on streaming/disc?
Heck, I experienced the reverse of this where Cinemark and the distributors edited out an intermission that had been baked into a foreign film. Sadly, our foreign filmmaker friends didn't raise a stink about that.
Ads + Trailers have become a problem, I've started showing up to the showtime 20 minutes late (when the theaters aren't crowded) and I still get in on the ads. Both Scorsese and the theaters need to respect our time, if you're going to hit us with such a massive runtime of ads & film, they'd better fly by. Alas they do not: this film is getting the same criticism that Avatar 2 got, by and large, that 30 minutes to an entire hour of the film felt superfluous.
Best Picture : Oppenheimer
Best Director: Greta Gerwig
Marty is going to have to settle for his one Oscar.
Yeah, I think Nolan is a lock for Best Director. I would vote for Oppenheimer over Killers of The Flower Moon. I really think the runtime of Flower Moon is going to be an issue. Nolan's film is paced so well.
I have two separate local theaters -- both about 25 minutes apart in two different cities -- and one will play five or six trailers, which extends the movie runtime an extra 20 minutes or so and the other one will play no more than two prior to the showing.
Honestly, I may be in the minority, but I am not a fan of sitting through a bunch of trailers in a theater atmosphere. If it's a movie I'm interested in, it's extremely likely I've already seen the trailer on the web anyway.
I'm curious about the licensing agreement here, because the drive-in theater that I make it out to once a year puts an intermission in every movie they show. Maybe they have a different agreement, or they're such a small operation that nobody raises an alarm bell.
Either way, I do think a movie should have an intermission if it's going to be that long and there's going to be a bunch of trailers running before it. Scorsese's argument that people sit and watch stage shows and TV for long periods of time does not hold up imo, because stage shows do have intermissions and you can pause a TV show and go take a bathroom break or grab a snack whenever you want. And frankly, I doubt an 80-year-old man like Marty can sit through a 3.5-hour movie without needing a bathroom break either.
After being displaced to barren landscapes in Oklahoma at the end of the 19th century...
A solid, detailed review. But I am amused as a lifetime resident of Southern Arizona who spent a few summers in Oklahoma to hear it described as "barren".
It's humid and the red clay that makes up much of its' topsoil (at least in southern OK) is a pain to dig through but barren it is not (at least in comparison to where I live).
Being used to the low humidity climate of S. AZ and having to dig shallow trenches for PVC piping in OK red clay (bring a pick axe and bottles of water) during the summer was an experience...one I flashed back to once I dug deep enough here to experience caliche.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
