Killers Of The Flower Moon

Director: Martin Scorsese.

Screenplay: Martin Scorsese, Eric Roth.

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert DeNiro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser, Tantoo Cardinal, Jason Isbell, Scott Shepherd, Louis Cancelmi, Tatanka Means, Tommy Schultz, Sturgill Simpson, Ty Mitchell, Pat Healy, Cara Jade Myers, Janae Collins, Jillian Dion, William Belleau, Gene Jones, J.C. MacKenzie, Barry Corbin, Jack White, Pete Yorn, Jay Paulson, Talee Redcorn, Yancey Redcorn, Steve Witting, Steve Routman, Charlie Musselwhite.

“I don’t know what you said, but it must’ve been Indian for handsome devil”

At the ripe old age of 80 years, Martin Scorsese shows no signs of slowing down. His latest in Killers of the Flower Moon sees him tackle a time in American history with just as much bite and ferociousness as someone half his age. To do so, he’s brought alongside his frequent collaborators in Leonardo DiCaprio (his sixth feature film with Scorsese) and Robert DeNiro (his 10th feature) to embody pivotal roles. However, this is the first time that we’ve had all three of them together which, in itself, is enough of a hook whether you appreciate this type of genre or not.

Plot: Oklahoma, post World War I, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns from the war looking for work on a Native American reservation and to reunite with his Uncle William Hale (Robert DeNiro). However, when the native people begin to be systematically murdered, federal investigators step in to unravel the mystery.

During a press conference at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival, Martin Scorsese said of his depiction of this tragedy in the American west that “It’s not a whodunit. It’s a who-didn’t-do-it.” This perfectly sums up his intentions when adapting David Grann’s nonfiction book. There has been some talk about script rewrites before this film became what it is; from Grann’s book, it was initially depicted from the angle of Tom White (played much later in the film by Jesse Plemons) a Bureau Investigator that eventually looked into the nefarious dealings within this Osage reservation which, in fact, led to the birth of the FBI. DiCaprio himself was initially going to play this role before the rewrites were suggested and the film took on a whole new structure and perspective.

Taking place in the 1920’s, the Wild West is a distant past and America is now an industrial heartland fuelled by black gold. On a piece of land bequeathed to them by white settlers, the Native American Osage tribe soon discover that they are oil-rich and now considered the wealthiest people on earth, per capita. We are introduced to this from the offset as we witness the Osage dance under geysers of oil as the late Robbie Robertson’s thunderous score sets the tone for what is to come. Following this opening, Robertson’s work settles to more of a ticking that captures the passage of time and reflects the proceedings of the greed and corruption that would become the undoing of the tribal people and it’s here where DiCaprio’s Ernest Burkhart and especially DeNiro’s William “King” Hale put their plans into action. Hale suggests that Burkhart win the heart of native woman Mollie (Lily Gladstone) in order that he become the rightful heir to her fortune if anything untoward should happen to her. At one point, Hale instructs Burkhart to read up on the history of the Osage to better understand them and while reading a passage and observing an image in a book we hear Ernest ask a crucial yet self-explanatory question – “can you see the wolves in this picture?”. As events unfold, Robertson’s score continues to be decisive to the overall mood of the narrative. The ticking from before emanates more rhythmically, like a heartbeat, as the stress and unravelling of these fierce and wolfish crimes take devastating shape and it becomes apparent that this is essentially still a gangster film from Scorsese that just happens to take place on the western plains rather than the urban landscape of his beloved New York.

As much as there is a whole host of characters at play here (the aforementioned Plemons’ Tom White doesn’t actually appear until 2 hours have passed) it’s still primarily focused on the dynamic of the three principal leads and their performances are fantastic; DeNiro’s “King” Hale has a regality to him from the moment we are introduced to him. His seemingly benevolent benefactor is actually never short of the banality of evil. However, it’s DiCaprio’s pathetic man-child that leaves suggestions on whether he’s even aware of his actions or whether his complicitness is due to the idolisation of his domineering uncle. The same could be said for Lily Gladstone; is she so naive not to suspect the actions of Burkhart as she does Hale or has love blinded her judgment? These questions are never fully answered but it does capture a genuine feeling of love and adoration between them which only adds to the overall devastating impact of Burkhart’s actions and Mollie being the heart and soul of the film – with Gladstone a genuine revelation and more than able to match anything that DiCaprio and DeNiro are offering.

As much as this is a picture on a grand scale, it’s also worth noting it’s 3 hours and 26 mins in length which may be challenging for some and begs the question whether it’s actually a requirement or not. Ordinarily, I’d be singing the praises of Scorsese’s longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker but she’s maybe indulged Marty a tad too much here. A bit more prudence with the editing could’ve trimmed a considerable amount from this and possibly kept the narrative tighter but this is an indication of where we’re at with our access to entertainment these days. Television and film are in a tug-of-war with each other and despite this films vast theatricality, its pace is more suited for the small screen where viewers are more attuned to bingeing episodes. With that said, there isn’t a moment where I was clock-watching such is the grip that the overall film possesses.

The other big question that hangs over it is the contentious issue of whether it should have been told from the perspective of the Osage tribe? Ideally, it should have. But this is why there’s a problem in Hollywood whereby stories like this are still being depicted from the perspective of the white man. Scorsese is aware of this, though, which leads to him ending it on a risk-taking and an almost self-referentially apologetic note. With the avoidance of spoilers, it’s a short, exponential sequence that may initially be jarring but it’s a fitting note from an artist wrestling with the fact that he’s a white man telling an indigenous story. We’re aware that this shouldn’t be the case but it’s a respectful and humbling curtain call to an overlooked and, frankly, censored genocide in American history which might never had been told without his influence and involvement in the first place. That’s an issue that lies with the system rather than the filmmaker.

Verdict: Robbie Robertson’s score is majestic in tonally complimenting a grand and affecting piece of work from Scorsese. Slightly overlong but there’s enough power and impact here that the length isn’t really an issue. It’s filled with quality from all angles; the gorgeous cinematography from Rodrigo Prieto, the production design and costumes that evoke the times perfectly to the three solid central performances. We’re lucky to have been living in the age of an auteur like Scorsese who highlights an important part of history and the dismantling of the American dream.

Mark Walker

Trivia: If you take into account the short film The Audition (2015), this would actually be the seventh collaboration between Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio and the eleventh collaboration between Scorsese and Robert De Niro.

8 Responses to “Killers Of The Flower Moon”

  1. This review, as usual, was thought provoking and complete.
    I was wary of the 3.5 hour duration however once hooked, I never looked at my watch.
    I also had my doubts about DiCaprios character but in the end he was a weak and foolish man who couldn’t think for himself , in his marriage and in the relationship he had with his uncle. A Yes man.
    Great movie and a great write up. Cheers

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The running time, unfortunately, was the factor that put me off from seeing this in a theater. Martin Scorsese is a brilliant filmmaker and for my action here I do feel guilty because he’s one of the last of a dying breed.

    But here’s where I push back a bit against his views on audience/consumer viewing habits. A TV show (long or short form) we binge to our hearts content, in the comfort of our living rooms, can be consumed at our own pace (i.e. bathroom breaks are less intrusive as we can pause the story and resume it, getting back into that headspace) and with whatever settings we want.

    There’s a limitation to the theatrical setting that we haven’t appreciated until the era of streaming (which was then exacerbated by COVID and lockdowns), and while the big screen is absolutely the preferred setting for me (no matter the story and scale) I really do think a movie that runs 3 and a half hours is a pushing it in to the realm of, at the very least, requiring an intermission. (Who was it that said a film’s running time should be directly correlated to the endurance of one’s bladder? lol it’s someone famous I think and it’s, uh, it’s true.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • I totally get you on this, man. There’s no doubt that the scale of this should be for the big screen but we have changed in our viewing habits. Asking anyone to sit for 3.5 hours with a numb arse is asking a touch too much. Strangely, Marty wants people back to the cinema’s but making a film this length will put people off. That aside, it’s still a great piece of work.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m definitely looking forward to sitting down with it at home. Marty’s reasoning is sound: if audiences are willing to binge 3.5 hours worth of a show, they should be able to sit through a movie. But yeah, there are some tangible differences I think he overlooks there. (I’m also not 100% with him on his views about Marvel movies being “theme park attractions,” even when the later ones have been pretty dire).

        Like

      • On the Marvel front that is where I entirely agree with him. I’m so, so jaded and tired with superhero movies. They’re saturating the market and I do actually believe they’re harming cinema. I don’t mind the occasional one here as there’s obviously a huge demand for them but they’re everywhere now. Scorsese himself struggles to get a studio to fund his films these days as a result. I can’t wait till Marvel and the rest take a long needed break.

        Like

      • That’s completely fair. In fact, I share more of that fatigue than my other comment let on. I’m sick and tired of Marvel (perhaps and weirdly not so much with DC but yeah their stories are pretty bad) dominating the market, like disco and funk killing off prog rock in the 70s lol. I had fun with the early rounds, it has gotten stale and routine (for me) since circa 2015-6.

        The demand for them is most problematic when it comes to notable filmmakers struggling to get their own original projects funded and picked up — yeah for that I would have to side with you too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • With this said, I haven’t seen much from the marvel/superhero angle this year and it’s showed in terms of quality and originality. 2023 has been a great year for movies in my mind. So much so, that I’m genuinely struggling to formulate a top ten. Long May this continue but, sadly, I believe next year will be yet another year of superhero’s, sequels and reboots.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment