There is no real way around that...and rightfully so.
For many years, Scorsese was considered the perennial filmmaker who was very overdue for an Oscar...which he finally did for The Departed in 2007, a film that I need to revisit but was not as passionate about as many were.
I do find it interesting when Scorsese steps out of his comfort zone with making films such as The Age of Innocence or Kundun...and I guess you could say that Killers of the Flower Moon falls into that category but with enough of the crime/mystery angle to make him feel at home.
However, this is a film that is dealing with...and I do not say this lightly...the truly abhorrent and despicable Osage Nation murders. We live in a world now where I am not so sure that certain filmmakers (i.e. WHITE) should be making films that revolve around other cultures.
But by the same token, I do appreciate a filmmaker like Scorsese wanting to tell the story and give it attention. It is with that confliction that I began viewing the film.
It has been talked about in many interviews that the original script was mainly from the POV of the FBI agent Tom White, that would eventually be played in the film in drastically cut supporting form by Jesse Plemons. This would be the role that Leonardo DiCaprio was originally attached to, but he had said to Scorsese that he felt the film truly lacked any kind of heart.
In a way, the idea of a film about a white FBI agent coming in to, more or less, save the day screams a "White Savior" trope to the nth degree. As an actor, DiCaprio was drawn to the character of Ernest Burkhart; the man who would marry into the Osage Nation and be part of the harm/death to their community by way of his uncle William K. Hale (Robert DeNiro).
There was a conscious goal from Scorsese and script co-writer Eric Roth to try to bring more insight and authenticity of the Osage Nation to the film and met with Chief Standing Bear to discuss their involvement in the film.
The results of this ended up being fairly solid. I think this could've ended up being A LOT worse in terms of being whitewashed, but that isn't to say that the film doesn't suffer from that at times.
Before I delve in further, let me give you the basic setup of the story:
Hale is presented as a friendly benefactor to the Osage Nation, speaking their language and offering them gifts and social services...and we see him telling Ernest that he should settle down and court Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone).
What we learn is that despite the fact that the Osage Nation owns the mineral rights to the land and the oil-lease revenues, the law requires that court-appointed guardians (who are white) must be the ones to manage the money as the Native Americans are instantly deemed "incompetent".
Hale's plan is to have many of the Osage Nation murdered so he can retain the rights to their money and their land...but Ernest has painted himself into a corner as he has grown to love Mollie and have children with her.
I am going to stop there with the plot, but I do want to express something:
This is one of, if not, THE hardest reviews I have yet to write.
I often like to sit down and write these reviews shortly after watching the film, but I found myself wanting to wait...and even typing this up now, I am sort of at a loss for words.
This is a truly dark and bleak film and at moments, the feeling of uncomfortable dread is rather palpable...and trust me, that is NOT a detriment. This film does need to have that vibe because they are not telling a story that should be taken lightly.
I do feel the film suffered, even if it was likely an improvement over the original draft, from too much focus being on Ernest and, to a lesser extent, Hale rather than Mollie and other Osage Nation people. I also think the film might've potentially worked better as a limited series in order to flesh out the Osage Nation more...but as a film, I actually think it suffered in its pacing.
I sound like a broken record at this point, but I have to bring up Oppenheimer.
While only 3 hours long compared to Killers' nearly 3.5-hour length, Oppenheimer benefitted from such a rapid pace with precise editing and a very sharp script. Scorsese has even said in interviews that he and longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker were inspired by the films of Ari Aster, who lets his films "breathe"; particularly something like Midsommar.
When I came across that article, it was not a surprise to see comments like "Well...I just lost interest!"
Long movies can bring out the worst in people. You have the "You are too stupid to appreciate great cinema!" crowd and then the "I can't sit through a 3-hour movie unless it is MCU" crowd. I would like to say that I am a little more supportive than some, but I am certainly more inclined to appreciate artsier affairs that may run close to 3 hours. I will even admit that a film like Titanic, which suffers greatly from a weak script when it comes to characters/dialogue, is a very entertaining and relatively well-paced 3+ hour film.
I am not so sure I can agree that Killers of a Flower Moon is a well-paced film. I just think that the slow burn nature often worked against it, and by the time we got to the final hour, I was shocked to realize that there was still nearly an hour left.
I understand that this was a based on a true story, but this is where I want to further discuss Ernest Burkhart and the issues I have with him.
Burkhart is basically naive and gullible...and by the end, I felt caught up in being annoyed with his flaky and uncertain nature...as if he was willing to believe anything his uncle told him and before we really realized it, he decided to testify against him.
All the while, we have to watch him be the one who suffers from afar wanting to see Mollie, the wife he has been helping to poison and his kids (one of whom who dies while he awaits trial) ...and yet, all I wanted was to see more of Mollie.
Thankfully, DiCaprio is DiCaprio and he basically does all that he could do with the role. He does have some truly strong moments, but I could see a world where he misses out on an Oscar nomination.
That brings me to Lily Gladstone, who has become the true star of the film.
As of this exact moment, Gladstone's performance is being debated about on film forums for various reasons ranging from whether she made the right choice to be placed in lead or if she should've stayed in supporting, and if her work is even Oscar worthy because she is mostly subtle/passive for significant passages of her scenes.
Every year, there are performances that get major Oscar attention that divide people over whether or not they actually did something awards worthy or not.
Recent winners like Regina King for If Beale Street Could Talk and a nomination like Kerry Condon for The Banshees of Inisherin are prime examples of this. For me, I supported King's win even if she wasn't my personal choice while I thought Condon would've made a far better winner than Jamie Lee Curtis.
This year, Gladstone likely would've won Supporting Actress in a cakewalk, but now, she is campaigning for Lead Actress which is very much a bloodbath with nearly a dozen women with a solid potential of grabbing one of the 5 slots.
I actually think Gladstone is pretty safe to get onto the shortlist, and I also think she has the drive/passion to pull it off, even if I feel like I have seen performances I liked more.
I want to stress that this is no slam at Gladstone. With what she was given, she was quite lovely and some of her moments of immense grief were truly difficult to watch. I just think what really hurts her is the script didn't give us enough moments for us to get closer to her or to allow her more time to simply express herself. This also doesn't help when she spends most of the latter half of her performance lying in bed lethargic and nearly dead...although she certainly convinces in that state.
In fact, those "moments of immense grief" that I just brought up? They are shot and staged in such a way that we often don't even get to see her cry. She mostly hides her face and puts her back to the camera as if we shouldn't even be seeing the turmoil...but part of me wishes we got those shots on screen a little longer. The anguish we hear from her screaming cries is nothing short of heartbreaking and while I feel weird saying I wish we could see her face in these moments, I just wanted the film to give her as much literal screentime as possible.
We get to see DiCaprio testifying on the stand in one long take, only for the film to cut to black and suddenly, we are in a studio watching a live broadcast of what appears to be a True Crime radio show complete with a live audience. We see the announcers, one of them randomly being Jack White of The White Stripes, essentially doing the film's epilogue.
Now - at first, I loved this moment but looking back on it, I am not sure it landed for me even if it was a creative way of doing something other than just the basic "text on a screen" epilogue.
I do think, despite the epilogue telling us that Hale and Burkhart never got to serve out their time to the length they deserved, that the film's ending gave us no true payoff.
As much as I wanted to see Hale get kicked down a flight of stairs, I know it didn't happen and I wouldn't want them to go too far astray from the story...but it would've been nice for them to at least show us the moment he was found guilty...or maybe give Mollie another moment to dig into Ernest for not owning up to poisoning her.
As it stands, Scorsese films can have a penchant for being a bit longer than they need to be.
The Aviator, The Wolf of Wall Street, and The Irishman are all key examples of films that could've easily shaved off 20-30 minutes of their run times. I even like all 3 of those movies!
I just feel with Killers of the Flower Moon that the potential was there for him to make another masterpiece on par with Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, but it did not quite make it there for me.
I still think you should watch it regardless. If anything, I am a rare outlier in this scenario.
7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment