Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[BluBonnet]

Whatever cognitive dissonance was going on in that mind of his was better explored in the book, imho. I'm sorry, but imho DiCaprio is just too much of a handsome leading man to really make you feel there's anything much going on in that noggin of his (or his character, at any rate). Buying the internal struggles going on in Ken's head in Barbie was an easier feat, at least for me, because Ryan really managed to sell the illusion that this was a not-too-bright lad who might not realize how his actions would affect others whom he cared for.

So, yeah, in this instance, Ryan was easily able to accomplish something that, to my eyes, Leo just couldn't do.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Whatever cognitive dissonance was going on in that mind of his was better explored in the book, imho. I'm sorry, but imho DiCaprio is just too much of a handsome leading man to really make you feel there's anything much going on in that noggin of his (or his character, at any rate). Buying the internal struggles going on in Ken's head in Barbie was an easier feat, at least for me, because Ryan really managed to sell the illusion that this was a not-too-bright lad who might not realize how his actions would affect others whom he cared for.

So, yeah, in this instance, Ryan was easily able to accomplish something that, to my eyes, Leo just couldn't do.

I daresay Ken's internal struggles are much more fathomable for most viewers, though, so it's not exactly an enormous feat for an actor to put them across. DiCaprio had an immensely tougher task, trying to create audience interest in a dull-witted, weak-willed man so motivated by greed that he murders or attempts to murder members of his own family. IMO, he and Scorsese succeed quite well by forgoing the usual movie cartoon villain portrayal, in favor of depicting Burkhart as the eternal human paradox, forever remaking reality in his head to avoid confronting his role in the carnage. (Which couldn't be a more timely theme for today's world, I'd say.)

At any rate, it's kind of an odd comparison (Ken and Ernest Burkhart??).

And, ftr, the film actually spends far more time inside Burkhart's head than Grann's book does.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

At any rate, it's kind of an odd comparison (Ken and Ernest Burkhart??).

Did they not both try to subjugate their women and try to construct a system that was mostly beneficial just to them, at the exclusion of others?

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

And, ftr, the film actually spends far more time inside Burkhart's head than Grann's book does.

The book does, admittedly, emphasize very different things than the movie does. Had the movie stuck closer to the book, it's possible that the character of Tom White could have become the most interesting of all the men in the movie. But clearly we didn't get that much from White's point of view.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Did they not both try to subjugate their women and try to construct a system that was mostly beneficial just to them, at the exclusion of others?

Yes. But a comparison between a live-action cartoon-satire/extended commercial for Mattel vs a very realistic and complex recreation of a historical atrocity is...certainly an offbeat one to make. The goals of the films and performances are wildly different.

The book does, admittedly, emphasize very different things than the movie does. Had the movie stuck closer to the book, it's possible that the character of Tom White could have become the most interesting of all the men in the movie. But clearly we didn't get that much from White's point of view.

Fortunately. The Tom White of the book and historical record isn't very interesting, and white savior narratives are beyond tired.

Ftr, book and movie actually do emphasize much the same things, even if the POV isn't always the same. People who think the book is mainly about Tom White and his investigation are in bad need of a more careful rereading.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

The goals of the films and performances are wildly different.

I think for any movie, engaging the viewer and having compelling characters should be one of the top priorities.

[spanky87]

Some recent comments from DiCaprio and Gladstone that are relevant to DiCaprio’s performance and Ernest’s characterization:

In addition to this level of representation for the Osage, people are noticing the tenderness of the romance Leo and Lily build behind the larger betrayal in their characters Mollie and Ernest Burkhart. How did you create that?

DICAPRIO: There’s the underlying story of deception that’s occurring, but we knew there had to be a connection because, frankly, that’s what the Osage community kept telling us adamantly — that these two people did fall in love. It became incredibly corrupt, one of the most twisted love stories I’ve ever come across in my life, but all true. The challenge was how much she knew I was complicit.

LILY GLADSTONE: If you’re playing the complicity, then it doesn’t work. You play the love, and the complicity and the betrayal come out of what is built with love there. It’s hard to explain how you find chemistry between two actors. It’s there or it’s not.


This character is not that smart, is he?

DICAPRIO: I went through a puzzling moment at the beginning of this shoot. I was struck by how slow Ernest was in his articulation. His writing seemed on the verge of having some sort of mental issue. At the same time, he was incredibly duplicitous and calculating. He was also manipulated by his uncle, who was the puppeteer of these heinous acts. I had a discussion in my own mind, wanting to make him culpable without going too extreme in either direction. It needed to be somewhere in the middle.

https://variety.com/2024/film/featur...ge-1235887633/

[BluBonnet]

Paul Schrader was right.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Can't get onboard with "sympathetic". But the character is recognizably human. Which is more than what most movies manage to do with a character like Ernest Burkhart.

This is something Scorsese has always done. And done very well.

I saw a fascinating interview he did wherein he addressed his humanization of some pretty despicable types over the years. And he attributes it to his days in the parish, studying to be a priest in his youth, and the priests who also were his mentors over the years. And he likens the approach to Christ's approach. He talks of the fascination he'd had earlier with works by people like Pasolini, who made a film like "Accatone", which is about a pimp in the slums of Rome. He is fascinated by exploring the deeply flawed, sinful, misguided, even remorseless humans. Not loving their sins, as Christ didn't, but still seeing them as people, not just one note, one diminensional movie villains.

He also has explored a particular theme since the beginning. That of a flawed, often cowardly, individual, who is torn between following what he'd really actually like to do, and following the restraints and expectations of his environment around him. Or one who lacks the fortitude to stand up for what's right. From Harvey Keitel as JR and Charlie to Daniel Day-Lewis in "The Age of Innocence" to Ernest Burkhart.

And he's fascinated by greed. The people who are selfish and greedy and completely self-serving, like Jake or Rupert or the wiseguys of GoodFellas or Casino to Bill the Butcher to Jordan Belfort to King Hale.

And, contrary to what some believe, he's never 'glorifying' it. He's simply honestly portraying the allure of it. What makes people sell their souls.

And he's often quoted the biblical text of 'What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul?'

His sinners always win for a while, and then they always fall.

This time, he's gone way deeper, by showing us what he's shown us before, and then also exploring the suffering this caused, to a whole group of people.

I read an indigenous woman's article recently wherein she defends the film and states matter of factly that people right now 'just aren't getting it'.

She says this isn't a film meant to make us empathetic, this is a film to make us feel shame.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I think for any movie, engaging the viewer and having compelling characters should be one of the top priorities.

What could be more compelling than a character that forces us to consider the staggering contradictions of the human psyche?

[dkelly26666]

I absolutely don't get the 'slow' and 'boring' complaints, either.

I've seen it five times, and it blasts along for me, every time. And I find ever more nuances and details the more I see it, too.

Everyone remember I said it. it's a future classic.

[BluBonnet]

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Wait and see.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Wait and see.

[Stanis]

Ahh BluBonnet is banned again... they were filling this thread up with terrible so good riddance.

Been watching this again in bits and pieces on Apple+, great stuff. I love all the characters surrounding the couple, lots of interesting faces and performances

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by Stanis

Ahh BluBonnet is banned again... they were filling this thread up with terrible so good riddance.

Been watching this again in bits and pieces on Apple+, great stuff. I love all the characters surrounding the couple, lots of interesting faces and performances

Good, hopefully we don’t hear from him for months again, that was a great time in forum history. If Killers of the Flower Moon was made by Disney or Marvel studios he would call it the best of all time lol

[Bugg]

Originally Posted by Stanis

Ahh BluBonnet is banned again... they were filling this thread up with terrible so good riddance.

Please let it be permanent this time.

[dkelly26666]

I know someone I'd love to see follow, but that one, it appears, is untouchable.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I know someone I'd love to see follow, but that one, it appears, is untouchable.

One? There’s a few I’d like to see!

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

One? There’s a few I’d like to see!

Well, I'm thinking of one, specific one, LOL. Not gonna name them, though, as the irony would be I'd end up banned, probably.

[Batterdammerung]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I know someone I'd love to see follow, but that one, it appears, is untouchable.

I can guess. The two seemed joined at the hip.