Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/thomasflight
The moment Scorsese walked on and read the last moments of Molly's life, I choked up. It was beautifully done. A way of him mourning this real-life person and her attempts to help her people, but it is like you said, a self-examination of how we've treated violence and crime in media.
@@gurratell7326I have to agree on this. I totally get what Scorsese was trying to achieve with the scene and his cameo but for me it just failed for being so abruptly and unexpectedly cut into the film that the whole bit took me out of the immersion and distanced me from the events instead of feeling compassion.
I read the story a while before watching the movie and when I heard Di Caprio was on it, I was sure that he'd lay the Sheriff and be the protagonist. It was to me a shock to see that we'd be following the bad guys instead
As an indigenous man, this is a great analysis of the movie. I commend you for your diligent research, patience and empathy for the actual history of what happened on turtle Island
i like how this movie demystifies criminals in movies with the Hales by showing how pathetic, slimy and frankly stupid they are, which adds to the disgust over their violent actions being done for stupid reasons, as well as showing how inept they with the fact that their conspiracy fell apart pretty quickly when someone actually started investigating them.
On the other side of the coin, even before you know about the angle Scorcese considered and rejected, it's a really effective choice to portray the Bureau men so unsentimentally. It's good that they shut the murders down, but really they just turn up and get to work. They don't grandstand (and the movie doesn't confer grandeur on them), they don't mete out moral judgements (except for sardonic references to the "epidemic" which the community is shrugging off). They're just men doing their jobs. Which makes you consider how much complicity it required from the other authorities in the area itself.
I didn't take in the bit with the oil execs in the film, didn't hit home the scale of this sort of moral corruption though probably knew it was happening subconsciously. That sort of stuff was definitely happening nationwide in the states at the time
@@blokey8 , funny how The Wolf of Wall Street did something similar too. As it would be easy to clarify FBI Agent Denham as the villain, only until we see Jordan Belfort fall more into doing immoral things, that when Denham brings him in, most started to think that he's the hero. Except Scorsese portrayed him as neither. Just another guy doing his job.
It's sad that "Flower Moon" went home empty handed at the Oscars, it deserved to win some awards, especially Best Actress. Hopefully, Lily Gladstone will receive another nomination in the future.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. We remember great movies, not Oscar winners. Many of the greatest movies didn't win awards. CODA won BP and it's already forgotten.
@@nickludwig5It definitely deserved best picture in my opinion, but it wasn’t going to win. Not over Oppenheimer. If released in a different year or maybe even earlier in the year, that might have been different. That being said, Scorsese’s last 4 films have all come back from the Oscars with nothing, unfortunately.
@@aussieseal9979 No, I'm saying it wasn't a special movie. A perfectly good and forgettable feelgood movie. On top of that, it's just a remake of a recent French film.
I am so glad that this movie gave Mollie more screen time and didn't shy away from the disturbing nature of these murders. We can hear over and over that murder is evil and be told that Native American people suffered. Still, by showing it, especially when it contextualizes this terrifying history through a more human lens, we can get a small inkling of how these people felt during the atrocities. This choice, paired with Lilly's heartbreaking performance, really made the viewing experience and message impactful.
@@johnnotrealname8168I disagree with the original commenter that it’s pointless to show it, but I do think they have a point that nothings changed. Indigenous people are still murdered and experience violence at much much higher rates than other groups. 4 in 5 Native people experience violence in their lifetime, and half have experienced sexual violence. That means if you know more than a couple native people, it’s extremely likely that at least one has experienced violence. It’s an ongoing, serious problem.
@@Eeeemomo Oh well that is similar to the Aboriginals. My point was regarding U.S. policy. I am sure they can badly govern themselves as much as any other group.
One of the best bit of praise I can give to this 3.5-hour movie is that right after finished it, I wanted to rewatch it immediately. Easily one of my favourite movies of all time. That line, "can you find the wolves in this picture" REALLY is a sort of skeleton key to understanding a lot of what the movie is trying to say. The guy in charge of overlooking the guardian system for the rich, Native American folks is also the leader of the KKK chapter in town. This is revealed in a pretty non-chalant manner. And then later on, he is seen serving on the jury in the big court case. No one is hiding. It is all quite blatant and out in the open. In the illustration of the wolves in that book, the wolves are in the foreground, after all. Clear for us to see. The illustration is pretty much from the perspective of the wolves! I kept wondering how Scorsese would end the film. What I got was VERY unexpected and powerful. It was powerful, self-aware, and reflective. And the final shot just hits like a truck. As I sat and listened to the ambiance that played over the credits, I just felt a DEEP sadness and ANGER.
I was recently thinking about how Scorsese now is for cinema what Hitchcock was in the 70s. The genius director, acclaimed by everyone and the source of cinematic wisdom for all. This said, Scorsese has done much more for cinema than Hitchock ever did - his contribution to film history and preservation is astounding. Add to that the fact that he's still making masterpieces (unlike Hitchcock in his later years) and I don't know how weird a person should be to dislike Marty.
Not knocking your entire point here - but I think saying that Scorsese "has done much more for cinema than Hitchcock ever did" is a stretch. Hitchcock started making films in the silent era, and basically wrote the book on a certain type of cinematic language. I don't think we could even imagine what the film landscape would look like as a whole without Hitchcock's influence. Again, Scorsese has been massively influential in his own right, I just don't think the impact is as wide-reaching.
@@timsopinion Well, I totally agree, and my point is that Scorsese has influenced not only filmmaking, but film criticism, film preservation, restoration, curation, and so on, areas in which Hitchcock didn't work.
idk how people are even debating this. scorsese has been one of the most important, if not the most important, leaders in film preservation and restoration. his mark on cinema is far beyond just his work.
My favorite film of last year. I have talked to people who have said the length and the pace made them feel like they'd never watch it again and I couldn't understand that criticism because I found the dichotomy between the banal evil from DeNiro and DiCaprio's characters (and their cohorts) contrasted against the Osage people so gripping. The way it subverts the typical thriller trope and tells you right up front that Ernest and co. love money more than they love the people in their community is so fascinating. And as you said, the 2nd to last scene with the radio show is so jarring and profound that I found myself super glued to the screen seeing it in theaters.
Personally I thought it was too long. And it took away the fun for me. It's not a reason for me never to watch it again, but then again watching a 3½ hour film doesn't happen every day for me. And there are a lot of other movies waiting in line before this one. The problem for me is it feels too predictable along the way. You know you need to go through all these murders and killings and it doesn't come with enough emotional thrills and scene stealers for me to be very invested. Either I don't feel the impact of these tragedies or I get numbed by the sheer amount. Where can the story take me when I already got the point 1½ hour in? Not even the characters are that interesting for me to care despite them being portrayed by some of the best actors the silver screen has ever seen. On a technical level everything is so perfectly executed (of course), and as a moviegoer you know you're being taken good care of. That is apart from the script. I think the problem lies in the script. It's too long, it's got too many characters, and lacks some extra magical moments for the long runtime. I would imagine some of it has to do with the turnaround of the adaptation that happened late in the production (of the script). Also I think it's no coincidence that the two longest Scorsese movies has been produced with streaming services that are longing for quality content. These big directors seems to be able to do whatever they like without studio executives interfering. And I don't think that's a good thing. Not even when it's Martin Scorsese. Compromises are not a bad thing for creativity and without them you often end up "going full retard." That's not to suggest this movie is retarded, but just that too much of anything isn't good. At the end of the day I'm having a hard time seeing what the film would ultimately lose from being 3 hours instead of 3½ hours.
@@jespersichlau4343you lost nothing either. If you actually “got” the point, then you *would have* been okay with feeling the idea for another hour or two. There is no “too long”.
@@Zythryl Well either I got the point early or I didn't get the point at all. Either way the longer running time didn't help. But please do enlighten me with the point if I happended to miss it. And yes there is such a thing as "too long" and you can bet your sweet juicy ass that's part of why it didn't win a single Oscar.
@@Zythrylstop being pretentious, there was nothing to “get,” it was a straightforward film based on true events. I liked it but didn’t love it and I also thought the movie was too long just not entertaining enough to warrant its runtime. Lots of repetitive scenes all displaying the same idea that didn’t drive the narrative forward which got tiring. Good movie but to me it’s one of Scorsese’s weaker films
@@MM-jc7uvYeah definitely, there's absolutely nothing to get, it all seems to be going somewhere and they were building it up but then you realize, they've got nothing to show for all this buildup and patience they've demanded of us. It's all just a smoke show with no satisfying conclusion to the whole tragedy. You just end up questioning why it was told like this in the first place and why did it have to be soo damn long??
Love the meta commentary. Him possibly accusing himself as a wolf, or us being wolves for indulging in the entertainment that is based on the suffering of a culture and subsequent commoditization of their culture, tragedy, and story by the ones who created the suffering. I appreciate his self reflection in this work more than his other movies. His 'shame' in participating in the glorification, our general misunderstanding of his obsession with 'wolves' and the darker side of the United States and American culture by us not seeing or not caring about how bad his characters can be.
@@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERSI think this is most definitely not what Martin Charles Scorsese was doing. He was showing that the community was still disregarded. Even after the trial Justice was perverted and hidden. The point is that the usual victory after the Court-Case did not happen.
I’m surprised there was no mention of the storm in the credits. That’s what really got me after the epilogue, was sitting with the storm like Molly asked Earnest to earlier in the film. That was such a good way to finish everything off.
The ending still shakes me to my core. Scorsese personally reading out the eulogy for Molly followed immediately by the Osage celebration was powerful.
This movie is 3 1/2 hours but I honestly could've watched another hour. It's brilliant and such an immersive historical film. It feels so real and distinct. Everything about this film is fantastic. The technical elements fit so well together. The score is perfect. It feels so old timey but modern at the same time. I absolutely loved it, and Scorsese's cameo sealed the deal for me. I think it was a sweet moment for Scorsese as the filmmaker to speak directly to the audience and show why this period and situation is so important to remember as we go forward. I'm just so glad that this story is being told in a mainstream narrative. I really hope that the Osage people are satisfied with the way this film portrayed their culture and history.
Brilliant analysis. I think everything you mention after 12:23 is why this film DIDN'T win Best Picture but "Oppenheimer" did. When it comes to stories about history, Oscar voters don't want to be made to reckon with anything. They don't want a film that prompts introspection or meditation on truly difficult subjects like racism and greed. Oscar voters want to walk out of the theater feeling good, and they want to reward movies that do that for them. That's why "Oppenheimer" had the edge. When you get down to it, it's a movie about people complicit in mass murder. But the movie doesn't dwell on that. It doesn't ask, "Isn't it ****ed up that you just spent three hours rooting for these people to create a weapon of mass destruction that slaughtered thousands?" What examination "Oppenheimer" performs of the man and his actions stays vigilantly surface level. On top of that, it spends a big part of the film making you feel sorry for him being the subject of a personal vendetta. It never asks you to extend that same sympathy to the Japanese people Oppenheimer and his colleagues helped kill. It just doesn't ask viewers to dig deep and ask unsettling questions about our government, our military, our culture, ourselves. If it did, it wouldn't have won Best Picture because Oscar voters wouldn't have left the theater feeling good. I'm not saying that "Oppenheimer" is bad in any sense; it was a good piece of entertainment. And it was just that: entertainment. KOTM aims to be more than that, and, as you mention, challenges us to see what happened to the Osage Nation as more than a just true crime story. When you consider this, it's obvious why Oscar voters sent KOTM away empty-handed.
I think the wolf motif can also tie in with the joke that Ernest tells Molly when they talk alone for the first time, he asks if what she said meant that she called him a coyote-a coyote is similar to a wolf but not quite; they’re both dangerous predators. Ernest was one of the main perpetrators but he was much dumber in contrast and cowardly, a wolf but not quite.
If Marty saw this video he would have been very flattered that someone found so many layers in his film and expressed them so eloquently. Hopes are low, but why not dream...
I only heard one complaint: "The movie is long!" But I need to understand why that is a problem when the movie is so good! Don't you guys think that if the Oscars were honest, Best Picture would've gone to Killers of The Flower Moon, Best Director would've gone to Martin Scorsese, and Best Score would've gone to Robertson!? Probably the greatest American Director alive won only one Oscar!!!
I don't know if you saw VFX breakdowns for this film @thomasflight but the storybook image was actually added digitally to the book after it was filmed. The original page just looked like a normal page of a book. Loved your video though, I especially loved the radio dramatization at the end and agree with everything you said about it. It's probably the best use of a director cameo I can think of.
that intro with the osage dancing in the oil has stuck with me ever since i first watched the film. i was high but i was smiling through the whole thing. genius filmmaking.
This is terrific work. You are my favourite new film video essayist. I became partial to your channel with your Oscar preference for this one. I'm really enjoying your work. Thank you for this.
Another great video thank you sir. Manifest Destiny is just a fancy word for “because we could.” Not coincidentally it’s the bully’s rallying cry. What a great, sinister cover-word for our collective diffusion of responsibility in any context. In a world where most everyone plays at least some part of “the wolf” archetype, you don’t need to find them whole to discern our evil.
11:20 _" It's not saying that money or technology is always bad or the root of all evil, it's valuing these things above human life that leads to horrific violence"_ is the kind of subtlety (both in films and in analysis) that is very welcome. It's tiring how much media is an overly simplific Capitalism /Socialism / Religion / Insert_Ideology_Here is bad with no attempt at looking at things from a different angle than the point of view being pushed.
Technology is generally neutral, who wields it and what it is wielded for makes it good or bad. I say generally because things like oil extraction is objectively making our planet worse
That's actually the true meaning of "money is the root of all evil." It's not money that's evil, but valuing it above human life. Humanity should come above all.
There’s a moment in The Wolf of Wall Street during a chaotic office scene when the Devo song Uncontrollable Urge starts playing. Devo’s mission, especially in that first album, was to reveal the de-evolution of humanity. I read this as Scorsese saying that the naked pursuit of money is de-evolving us. At the beginning of The Irishman, we see Frank killing German soldiers in cold blood as he was more or less ordered to do. I see this as Scorsese saying war traumatizes us and desensitizes us to human suffering. Here, I I think the two meet. Ernest loves money, of course, but in two separate scenes he also tells both his brother and his uncle about the horrors he saw in World War I which neither family member pays much attention to. Ernest has been shaped by these twin gods of money and violence to the point that he can refuse the understanding that what he is doing is wrong, just as the society that shaped him continues to refuse that same understanding.
I really liked this film but I could not get past Leo doing the dang grumpy cat face the entire film. I presume its to make him look unsympathetic and simple-minded, but its just so funny.
This might just become one of my favorite movies of all time. Every time i rewatch or merely think about it i find something new to be struck by. Harrowing stuff.
one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Scorsese's run from Wolf to KotFM is extremely impressive, some of the best work of his career. Schoonmacher continues to be one of the greatest editors to ever do it, the pacing is perfect.
It’s shocking to me how monumentally disregarded this film has been and how any intellectual criticism is boiled down to the puerility of “scorcese goes woke” - populism and politics has not only ruined the world but also film criticism
Make a video on some of PTA's films. I loved your video on PTA about the shift in his style but I'd love a video taking in depth about one of his films maybe The Master, Phantom Thread, Inherent Vice or even Licorice Pizza.
Very astute review. It's videos like these from you that made me start my own UA-cam channel and try to write down my thoughts and criticism about film and media. You have such a great way of bringing out my own feelings towards something in your description. That 'The Wire' video really spoke to me. And can I also say: you have also really strongly improved during these years. To many more.
Great video, Thomas. A lovely illustration of how Scorsese handles the Manifest Destiny theme. I enjoyed the film; it's undoubtedly great from a technical and theatrical perspective. However, I think Scorsese made some very strange decisions in his approach to telling this story that keep it from being his best work. His narrow focus on Molly and Ernest meant that so many important details about the broader effect of the evil inflicted upon the Osage were entirely glossed over (e.g. how many other murders took place that were never looked into and how the Osage went about protecting themselves as a community). I much preferred David Grann's take in the novel, where there was significantly more mystery and, consequently, shock factor when it is eventually revealed who the wolves responsible for the sinister murder plot really are. I also think Grann did FAR more with Jesse Plemons' character, Tom White. He's very uninteresting in the film (a farcry from his fascinating depiction in the book). Lastly, I think Molly deserved far more screen time and focus in the third act than Ernest--his turmoil really seemed to dominate the story here when it arguably shouldn't have. If you've read the book, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts (and the thoughts of anyone else who's read it) :D Edit: Your point about one of the film's goals being to push us to examine, recognise and resist the type of evil on display here is fantastic-I couldn't agree more. And I think it would still have been achievable if Scorsese hadn't focused so much on Molly and Ernest and had instead taken an approach similar to that of the book. I would have loved to see at least half the story told from Molly's subjective perspective so, like the book, we could get a clearer idea of how well these wolves were hiding in and manipulating the community so effectively.
I’ve read the book and get your complaints though disagree. They were initially going to make Tom the protagonist but worried that it would come off like a white savior story and that as a person, he really didn’t have any flaws. He was a straight shooter and works if you wanna tell the story of the origin of the FBI but would distract even more from the native POV. The Molly/Ernest focus is meant to be a microcosm of the community trauma and while I think it works, it can definitely vary. I feel like they narrowed the focus because it’s such a big story in scope that broadening out the character focus would get us lost
I do wish Scorcese filmed more from Molly's narrowed perspective, similar to Rosemary's Baby or Get Out, not just because the lack of information would add to the tension, but because it further forces the audience in the mindset of Molly and the Osage, living through a nightmare caused by those who are physically and sometimes intimately closest to them. That said, I do get the point of Ernest's perspective in showing the casualness and mundanity of it all to the white people of Osage. What is shocking and unthinkable to the Osage people and modern audiences was considered so normal and justified via a matter of fact belief in white supremacy that they barely thought of masking their actions and intentions. And Ernest being boring is also part of the narrative from my perspective: he wasn't some interesting guy with a particularly warped view. He's dumb and mediocre. Average at best. That shows how accessible and attractive white supremacy was and can be, even for those who don't consider themselves true believers. A part of me wishes that the film was split to more clearly evoke that dissonance: part 1 from Molly's perspective, part 2 going over the same events from Ernest's perspective as the reveal, and part 3 the trial/aftermath once the feds get involved.
@@CapitalFProductions yes, I saw that their first draft of the script more closely resembled Grann’s approach to the book. And while this would have been interesting, I actually agree with your point that focusing solely on Tom and his team would have been a mistake. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have built his character out a bit more and given us a bit more time with him and his team (particularly during their investigation and the trials later on - this all goes way too fast, in my opinion). I wish they’d found a way to blend the two versions of the script into something that still felt original and achieved their goal of keeping the story so personal, but also helped us appreciate some of the others involved in the story (both the oppressors and the oppressed). I actually did my own video and article on this, so if you get a chance, I’d love to hear your thoughts on them 👍🏽
@@realtalk13 I really like your points here, dude. Particularly the part about splitting the film into different perspectives - this is how I was hoping they’d done it. Maybe starting at the end during the trial and showing the various events through each of the characters subjective viewpoints, gradually revealing the atrocities as each account was dissected. Something like this would have been a riveting and original way to tell the story whilst capturing all the nuance and conflict (in my opinion, anyway 😂)
@@realtalk13 If the scope of the story was much more narrow, an approach like Get Out or RB could work but the goal was to encapsulate a really wide story set over many years. The examples mentioned are much briefer in time but at the end of the day, it's really about who's telling the story. I think a lot of the people commenting on the movie (mainly twitter) tended to get obsessed with what THEY would've done and because Scorsese didn't do it, shade was thrown. Which is a big reason I love the ending as much as I do, that it does acknowledge how limiting cinema can be when telling a story as raw as this
Great video! Been watching your channel for a couple of years now and just wanted to give an early congratulations for reaching 1 million subscribers! Honestly, well deserved.
An excellent review of a significant film made by a true master of craftsmanship. Personally I think KILLERS OF THE FLOWERMOON together with SILENCE and AVIATOR are Scorsese's most underrated films.
This movie is great... because it hides 'Capitalist greed' as being purely about Caucasian greed. Therefore progressive Caucasians can feel a righteousness cleansing pain about their past. And to resolve to do better in the future. Dissolving them of their 'original sin' and yet still maintaining their complete obedience to and acceptance of... Capitalist greed. It's a win-win for progressive Caucasians - and that's why they love this film. It make progressives feel better about themselves... and that's not just entertainment, that's emotional cathartic healing too.
I think Silence still remains one of the greatest movies ever made and there's so much thought provoking themes discussed in that project that I salute sir martin for making it possible and actually tell the story. I was sooo hyped to watch this only to realize it's really just an excessively long telling of a great tragedy with no satisfying conclusion at the end, the audience is made to leave speechless as they're left wondering why it had to be soo long in the first place! It's just criminals doing crimes and innocent people watching their family be destroyed in front of their eyes. I don't care how revered you are as a filmmaker, but that is not good storytelling. There's no depth to be found here folks, it's just depressing to watch and no payoff whatsoever for sticking around.
Loved this film. A classic Scorsese film. Very powerful, dark and harrowing and expertly crafted and told by one of the greatest filmmaker of modern times. Adore his films.
Very interesting video. i shall be thinking about the wolves in the picture for quite some Time, thanks to you. To me the pacing in the movie goes with the representation of an evil or violence more systemic and cultural than Scorsese's mafia movies and i really appreciated his showing the slow, Insidious percolating of such violence, inversely proportional to how it IS looked down on by the "wolves". I couldn't help but regard the film as the other side to"Silence", with religious violence repeating itself over and over, dragging on to a luminous ending (killers would be the dark side). The ending reminded me both of the audience AT the end of the Wolf of Wall Street and also of Spike Lee's "wake UP" montage AT the end of BlacKkKlansman.
Ernest is the most Scrosese-like thing in the entire movie for me. David Ehrlich of Indiewire said that Scorsese has always tried to show how blurred the line is between love and exploitation. Ernest is a perfect vessel for that. As to the ending, it's clarifies Scorsese's intent with this movie so well that it shocked me. Usually Scorsese avoids this step.
I read the story a while before watching the movie and when I heard Di Caprio was on it, I was sure that he'd lay the Sheriff and be the protagonist. It was to me a shock to see that we'd be following the bad guys instead
Love of God is ultimately the same thing as loving him and loving neighbour as oneself - so by loving money first, Ernest is unable to love neighbour too
Didn't like how they made that snake Ernest essentially the main character, when the decent honorable man Tom White was the main character in the book.
Ernest not fully confessing his sins to Molly was the most heartbreaking moment in the film to me. The Bible instructs us to confess our sins to one another so that we may be healed, and that all that is hidden will be eventually brought to light. Half confessions do not bring healing. I do think that in that scene Molly loved Ernest enough to take him back even after she learned of the extent of his crimes. But by concealing even still, she knows that he has been given over to his sin and not truly repented.
When most people view movies, they try to find a character or characters that they relate to, so they can get behind them. With Flowers, the viewing majority saw their culture reflected, not in the Osage tribe but in all of those who were exploiting them. Most don't want to view themselves as the bad guy. That is only wanted if the bad guy is viewed as cool. Here the bad guys are evil and not cool at all. (example -In Goodfella's we view things from the bad guys perspective but they are so cool, so we can get behind them.) Flowers doesn't do that. It turns the mirror on the viewers and we as a culture don't like that. This is why I believe the movie was not well received, even though it was UNBELIEVABLY good.
I watched an interview where Martin Charles Scorsese sayed that the book was about the investigation but he saw the core tension in the relationship and betrayal of the main couple. This is not without criticism on my part, it does render the investigation a bit short but more importantly it diminishes the scale of the horrors. The murders were massive, 100s over 20 years, yet here we focus really on three or four especially as the investigation seems to have been well done. However it does shock me whenever it is revealed that Ernest George Burkhart was the participant, for example Scorsese repeating the murder of the Private-Investigator and the second time showing who did it. You realise wait do you care or not? Each time you almost are begging him and cheering him on to do the right thing but at the end you realise he still is the same guy who killed all of them. Brutal stuff.
8:21 you TOTALLy missed the classic #NYCMoney&Power #Horror of #RosemarysBaby: the #BigReveal where Rosemary understands the building community in which she has been living
Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today and get 40% off your subscription: ground.news/thomasflight
The moment Scorsese walked on and read the last moments of Molly's life, I choked up. It was beautifully done. A way of him mourning this real-life person and her attempts to help her people, but it is like you said, a self-examination of how we've treated violence and crime in media.
What? That whole last scene was both awkward and cringeworthy, I have no idea what Scorsese was thinking with that one.
@@gurratell7326best scene in the movie
I teared up seeing him. That scene was brilliant!
@@gurratell7326I have to agree on this. I totally get what Scorsese was trying to achieve with the scene and his cameo but for me it just failed for being so abruptly and unexpectedly cut into the film that the whole bit took me out of the immersion and distanced me from the events instead of feeling compassion.
I read the story a while before watching the movie and when I heard Di Caprio was on it, I was sure that he'd lay the Sheriff and be the protagonist. It was to me a shock to see that we'd be following the bad guys instead
As an indigenous man, this is a great analysis of the movie. I commend you for your diligent research, patience and empathy for the actual history of what happened on turtle Island
i like how this movie demystifies criminals in movies with the Hales by showing how pathetic, slimy and frankly stupid they are, which adds to the disgust over their violent actions being done for stupid reasons, as well as showing how inept they with the fact that their conspiracy fell apart pretty quickly when someone actually started investigating them.
On the other side of the coin, even before you know about the angle Scorcese considered and rejected, it's a really effective choice to portray the Bureau men so unsentimentally. It's good that they shut the murders down, but really they just turn up and get to work. They don't grandstand (and the movie doesn't confer grandeur on them), they don't mete out moral judgements (except for sardonic references to the "epidemic" which the community is shrugging off). They're just men doing their jobs. Which makes you consider how much complicity it required from the other authorities in the area itself.
I didn't take in the bit with the oil execs in the film, didn't hit home the scale of this sort of moral corruption though probably knew it was happening subconsciously. That sort of stuff was definitely happening nationwide in the states at the time
@@blokey8 , funny how The Wolf of Wall Street did something similar too. As it would be easy to clarify FBI Agent Denham as the villain, only until we see Jordan Belfort fall more into doing immoral things, that when Denham brings him in, most started to think that he's the hero. Except Scorsese portrayed him as neither. Just another guy doing his job.
It's sad that "Flower Moon" went home empty handed at the Oscars, it deserved to win some awards, especially Best Actress. Hopefully, Lily Gladstone will receive another nomination in the future.
I was sure it would win best picture. I was really disappointed it didn't win anything. It deserved a lot more
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. We remember great movies, not Oscar winners. Many of the greatest movies didn't win awards. CODA won BP and it's already forgotten.
@@nickludwig5It definitely deserved best picture in my opinion, but it wasn’t going to win. Not over Oppenheimer. If released in a different year or maybe even earlier in the year, that might have been different. That being said, Scorsese’s last 4 films have all come back from the Oscars with nothing, unfortunately.
@@CarlHH777you saying CODA wasn't good?
@@aussieseal9979 No, I'm saying it wasn't a special movie. A perfectly good and forgettable feelgood movie. On top of that, it's just a remake of a recent French film.
I am so glad that this movie gave Mollie more screen time and didn't shy away from the disturbing nature of these murders. We can hear over and over that murder is evil and be told that Native American people suffered. Still, by showing it, especially when it contextualizes this terrifying history through a more human lens, we can get a small inkling of how these people felt during the atrocities. This choice, paired with Lilly's heartbreaking performance, really made the viewing experience and message impactful.
It's pointless to show it, nothing have really changed
@@stellviahohenheimHow has nothing changed? They have more self-determination.
@@johnnotrealname8168I disagree with the original commenter that it’s pointless to show it, but I do think they have a point that nothings changed. Indigenous people are still murdered and experience violence at much much higher rates than other groups. 4 in 5 Native people experience violence in their lifetime, and half have experienced sexual violence. That means if you know more than a couple native people, it’s extremely likely that at least one has experienced violence. It’s an ongoing, serious problem.
@@Eeeemomo Oh well that is similar to the Aboriginals. My point was regarding U.S. policy. I am sure they can badly govern themselves as much as any other group.
Thanks for continuing to discuss Killers of the Flower Moon. It deserves to be remembered. I still think about it often. Such a haunting film.
One of the best bit of praise I can give to this 3.5-hour movie is that right after finished it, I wanted to rewatch it immediately. Easily one of my favourite movies of all time.
That line, "can you find the wolves in this picture" REALLY is a sort of skeleton key to understanding a lot of what the movie is trying to say. The guy in charge of overlooking the guardian system for the rich, Native American folks is also the leader of the KKK chapter in town. This is revealed in a pretty non-chalant manner. And then later on, he is seen serving on the jury in the big court case. No one is hiding. It is all quite blatant and out in the open. In the illustration of the wolves in that book, the wolves are in the foreground, after all. Clear for us to see. The illustration is pretty much from the perspective of the wolves!
I kept wondering how Scorsese would end the film. What I got was VERY unexpected and powerful. It was powerful, self-aware, and reflective. And the final shot just hits like a truck.
As I sat and listened to the ambiance that played over the credits, I just felt a DEEP sadness and ANGER.
Yeah but that means he also convicted the criminals who carried out the murders.
I was recently thinking about how Scorsese now is for cinema what Hitchcock was in the 70s. The genius director, acclaimed by everyone and the source of cinematic wisdom for all. This said, Scorsese has done much more for cinema than Hitchock ever did - his contribution to film history and preservation is astounding. Add to that the fact that he's still making masterpieces (unlike Hitchcock in his later years) and I don't know how weird a person should be to dislike Marty.
That's debatable. It's possible that without Hitchcock we wouldn't have Spielberg or Scorsese
Not knocking your entire point here - but I think saying that Scorsese "has done much more for cinema than Hitchcock ever did" is a stretch. Hitchcock started making films in the silent era, and basically wrote the book on a certain type of cinematic language. I don't think we could even imagine what the film landscape would look like as a whole without Hitchcock's influence. Again, Scorsese has been massively influential in his own right, I just don't think the impact is as wide-reaching.
@@timsopinion Well, I totally agree, and my point is that Scorsese has influenced not only filmmaking, but film criticism, film preservation, restoration, curation, and so on, areas in which Hitchcock didn't work.
Good comparison, I think Alfred and Marty are toe to toe though
idk how people are even debating this. scorsese has been one of the most important, if not the most important, leaders in film preservation and restoration. his mark on cinema is far beyond just his work.
My favorite film of last year. I have talked to people who have said the length and the pace made them feel like they'd never watch it again and I couldn't understand that criticism because I found the dichotomy between the banal evil from DeNiro and DiCaprio's characters (and their cohorts) contrasted against the Osage people so gripping. The way it subverts the typical thriller trope and tells you right up front that Ernest and co. love money more than they love the people in their community is so fascinating. And as you said, the 2nd to last scene with the radio show is so jarring and profound that I found myself super glued to the screen seeing it in theaters.
Personally I thought it was too long. And it took away the fun for me. It's not a reason for me never to watch it again, but then again watching a 3½ hour film doesn't happen every day for me. And there are a lot of other movies waiting in line before this one. The problem for me is it feels too predictable along the way. You know you need to go through all these murders and killings and it doesn't come with enough emotional thrills and scene stealers for me to be very invested. Either I don't feel the impact of these tragedies or I get numbed by the sheer amount. Where can the story take me when I already got the point 1½ hour in? Not even the characters are that interesting for me to care despite them being portrayed by some of the best actors the silver screen has ever seen. On a technical level everything is so perfectly executed (of course), and as a moviegoer you know you're being taken good care of. That is apart from the script. I think the problem lies in the script. It's too long, it's got too many characters, and lacks some extra magical moments for the long runtime. I would imagine some of it has to do with the turnaround of the adaptation that happened late in the production (of the script). Also I think it's no coincidence that the two longest Scorsese movies has been produced with streaming services that are longing for quality content. These big directors seems to be able to do whatever they like without studio executives interfering. And I don't think that's a good thing. Not even when it's Martin Scorsese. Compromises are not a bad thing for creativity and without them you often end up "going full retard." That's not to suggest this movie is retarded, but just that too much of anything isn't good. At the end of the day I'm having a hard time seeing what the film would ultimately lose from being 3 hours instead of 3½ hours.
@@jespersichlau4343you lost nothing either. If you actually “got” the point, then you *would have* been okay with feeling the idea for another hour or two.
There is no “too long”.
@@Zythryl Well either I got the point early or I didn't get the point at all. Either way the longer running time didn't help. But please do enlighten me with the point if I happended to miss it. And yes there is such a thing as "too long" and you can bet your sweet juicy ass that's part of why it didn't win a single Oscar.
@@Zythrylstop being pretentious, there was nothing to “get,” it was a straightforward film based on true events. I liked it but didn’t love it and I also thought the movie was too long just not entertaining enough to warrant its runtime. Lots of repetitive scenes all displaying the same idea that didn’t drive the narrative forward which got tiring. Good movie but to me it’s one of Scorsese’s weaker films
@@MM-jc7uvYeah definitely, there's absolutely nothing to get, it all seems to be going somewhere and they were building it up but then you realize, they've got nothing to show for all this buildup and patience they've demanded of us. It's all just a smoke show with no satisfying conclusion to the whole tragedy. You just end up questioning why it was told like this in the first place and why did it have to be soo damn long??
Love the meta commentary. Him possibly accusing himself as a wolf, or us being wolves for indulging in the entertainment that is based on the suffering of a culture and subsequent commoditization of their culture, tragedy, and story by the ones who created the suffering. I appreciate his self reflection in this work more than his other movies. His 'shame' in participating in the glorification, our general misunderstanding of his obsession with 'wolves' and the darker side of the United States and American culture by us not seeing or not caring about how bad his characters can be.
Scorsese got paid a huge amount of money to profit of this tragedy. He's a pig.
So is he going to give all the money he made off of it back? Or just kick the ladder down so the next guy can't do what he profited off of?
@@I-ONLY-BUILD-MECHS-AND-DUSTERSI think this is most definitely not what Martin Charles Scorsese was doing. He was showing that the community was still disregarded. Even after the trial Justice was perverted and hidden. The point is that the usual victory after the Court-Case did not happen.
I thoroughly enjoyed “Oppenheimer,” but “Killers of the Flower Moon” shot my jaw through the floor. Absolute masterpiece.
I’m surprised there was no mention of the storm in the credits. That’s what really got me after the epilogue, was sitting with the storm like Molly asked Earnest to earlier in the film. That was such a good way to finish everything off.
The ending still shakes me to my core. Scorsese personally reading out the eulogy for Molly followed immediately by the Osage celebration was powerful.
sincerely have not stopped thinking about that epilogue since I saw the film months and months ago
This movie is 3 1/2 hours but I honestly could've watched another hour. It's brilliant and such an immersive historical film. It feels so real and distinct. Everything about this film is fantastic. The technical elements fit so well together. The score is perfect. It feels so old timey but modern at the same time. I absolutely loved it, and Scorsese's cameo sealed the deal for me. I think it was a sweet moment for Scorsese as the filmmaker to speak directly to the audience and show why this period and situation is so important to remember as we go forward. I'm just so glad that this story is being told in a mainstream narrative. I really hope that the Osage people are satisfied with the way this film portrayed their culture and history.
Brilliant analysis. I think everything you mention after 12:23 is why this film DIDN'T win Best Picture but "Oppenheimer" did.
When it comes to stories about history, Oscar voters don't want to be made to reckon with anything. They don't want a film that prompts introspection or meditation on truly difficult subjects like racism and greed. Oscar voters want to walk out of the theater feeling good, and they want to reward movies that do that for them.
That's why "Oppenheimer" had the edge. When you get down to it, it's a movie about people complicit in mass murder. But the movie doesn't dwell on that. It doesn't ask, "Isn't it ****ed up that you just spent three hours rooting for these people to create a weapon of mass destruction that slaughtered thousands?"
What examination "Oppenheimer" performs of the man and his actions stays vigilantly surface level. On top of that, it spends a big part of the film making you feel sorry for him being the subject of a personal vendetta. It never asks you to extend that same sympathy to the Japanese people Oppenheimer and his colleagues helped kill.
It just doesn't ask viewers to dig deep and ask unsettling questions about our government, our military, our culture, ourselves. If it did, it wouldn't have won Best Picture because Oscar voters wouldn't have left the theater feeling good.
I'm not saying that "Oppenheimer" is bad in any sense; it was a good piece of entertainment. And it was just that: entertainment. KOTM aims to be more than that, and, as you mention, challenges us to see what happened to the Osage Nation as more than a just true crime story. When you consider this, it's obvious why Oscar voters sent KOTM away empty-handed.
Very well said.
I do love them video analysis essays sir
🤣🤣🤣
At that line about the wolves I never felt more helpless
I think the wolf motif can also tie in with the joke that Ernest tells Molly when they talk alone for the first time, he asks if what she said meant that she called him a coyote-a coyote is similar to a wolf but not quite; they’re both dangerous predators. Ernest was one of the main perpetrators but he was much dumber in contrast and cowardly, a wolf but not quite.
Good point!
If Marty saw this video he would have been very flattered that someone found so many layers in his film and expressed them so eloquently.
Hopes are low, but why not dream...
hahaha, I'm pretty sure Thomas is not the first person to see the layers in this movie
I only heard one complaint: "The movie is long!" But I need to understand why that is a problem when the movie is so good! Don't you guys think that if the Oscars were honest, Best Picture would've gone to Killers of The Flower Moon, Best Director would've gone to Martin Scorsese, and Best Score would've gone to Robertson!? Probably the greatest American Director alive won only one Oscar!!!
its too long because you can cut probably 30 mins out of it and the film will be the same
@@username.exenotfound2943 Oh, nonsense!
I don't know if you saw VFX breakdowns for this film @thomasflight but the storybook image was actually added digitally to the book after it was filmed. The original page just looked like a normal page of a book. Loved your video though, I especially loved the radio dramatization at the end and agree with everything you said about it. It's probably the best use of a director cameo I can think of.
that intro with the osage dancing in the oil has stuck with me ever since i first watched the film. i was high but i was smiling through the whole thing. genius filmmaking.
Not the kind of movie you should be smiling all the way through
smiling?? bro
We need a video on The Zone of Interest
This aged well
i love the mindset you start with for this analysis. i immediately subscribed, im hoping i could enjoy more of these insightful videos. great job!
This is terrific work. You are my favourite new film video essayist. I became partial to your channel with your Oscar preference for this one. I'm really enjoying your work. Thank you for this.
Another great video thank you sir. Manifest Destiny is just a fancy word for “because we could.” Not coincidentally it’s the bully’s rallying cry.
What a great, sinister cover-word for our collective diffusion of responsibility in any context. In a world where most everyone plays at least some part of “the wolf” archetype, you don’t need to find them whole to discern our evil.
Scorsese’s own monologue on the stage at the end has become my favorite scene in a long time
11:20 _" It's not saying that money or technology is always bad or the root of all evil, it's valuing these things above human life that leads to horrific violence"_ is the kind of subtlety (both in films and in analysis) that is very welcome. It's tiring how much media is an overly simplific Capitalism /Socialism / Religion / Insert_Ideology_Here is bad with no attempt at looking at things from a different angle than the point of view being pushed.
Technology is generally neutral, who wields it and what it is wielded for makes it good or bad. I say generally because things like oil extraction is objectively making our planet worse
That's actually the true meaning of "money is the root of all evil." It's not money that's evil, but valuing it above human life. Humanity should come above all.
There’s a moment in The Wolf of Wall Street during a chaotic office scene when the Devo song Uncontrollable Urge starts playing. Devo’s mission, especially in that first album, was to reveal the de-evolution of humanity. I read this as Scorsese saying that the naked pursuit of money is de-evolving us.
At the beginning of The Irishman, we see Frank killing German soldiers in cold blood as he was more or less ordered to do. I see this as Scorsese saying war traumatizes us and desensitizes us to human suffering.
Here, I I think the two meet. Ernest loves money, of course, but in two separate scenes he also tells both his brother and his uncle about the horrors he saw in World War I which neither family member pays much attention to. Ernest has been shaped by these twin gods of money and violence to the point that he can refuse the understanding that what he is doing is wrong, just as the society that shaped him continues to refuse that same understanding.
Yeah way to wash away the murders of hundreds of Indians.
This essay has made me appreciate the film much more. Thank you!
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 The ending radio scene did feel out of place ... But you explained its meaning beautifully ... Thank you for your brilliant work you produce
Scorsese also made Silence which is essentially a dissection of Catholicism as well
I agree, and as a Japanese lit major from many, many years ago, I recommend the excellent novel by Shusaku Endo upon which Scorcese based his film.
I really liked this film but I could not get past Leo doing the dang grumpy cat face the entire film. I presume its to make him look unsympathetic and simple-minded, but its just so funny.
Lily Gladstones Oscar is probably the biggest snub since Judy Garland for "A Star is Born."
Nah, Emma deserved it. Honestly this years best actress category was incredibly stacked in general.
@K.C-2049 she was fantastic
@@majinweabuu6679this is so true man god bless these talented women
Wonderful dissection. You nailed it, especially the true depths of the epilogues.
this video is incredible, thank you for making it. this film is a masterpiece
I found the last few moments of Killers of Flower Moon very intense. It was definitely a mirror flipped to the audience.
Honey! Get in here! Thomas Flight dropped a new video!
Martin Scorsese is the living embodiment of "I CAN DO THIS ALL DAY" 😂
The guy is going to be making films to his last breath and I'm here for it 😅😅
Thomas contiually knocking it out of the park with his insightful analysis.
This might just become one of my favorite movies of all time. Every time i rewatch or merely think about it i find something new to be struck by. Harrowing stuff.
Excellent analysis as always. Love your work. Cheers!
one of the greatest movies I've ever seen. Scorsese's run from Wolf to KotFM is extremely impressive, some of the best work of his career. Schoonmacher continues to be one of the greatest editors to ever do it, the pacing is perfect.
I'm so early to a new Thomas video what a time to be alive thank you for this. I've been thinking about that line since I saw it opening day.
Your review and analysis of movies is unmatched in this space, thank you and keep pushing your originality
It’s shocking to me how monumentally disregarded this film has been and how any intellectual criticism is boiled down to the puerility of “scorcese goes woke” - populism and politics has not only ruined the world but also film criticism
Make a video on some of PTA's films. I loved your video on PTA about the shift in his style but I'd love a video taking in depth about one of his films maybe The Master, Phantom Thread, Inherent Vice or even Licorice Pizza.
This was a wonderful analysis that weaved in history and society. Thank you, it's giving me much to think about and process.
Very astute review. It's videos like these from you that made me start my own UA-cam channel and try to write down my thoughts and criticism about film and media. You have such a great way of bringing out my own feelings towards something in your description. That 'The Wire' video really spoke to me. And can I also say: you have also really strongly improved during these years. To many more.
Deserved to win best Picture
6:20 "the middle two and a half hours of the motive"
Excuse me WHAT. How long is this thing?
Three and a half hours?! Geeez
And not a minute wasted!
@@凯思 such hyperbole
Great video, Thomas. A lovely illustration of how Scorsese handles the Manifest Destiny theme.
I enjoyed the film; it's undoubtedly great from a technical and theatrical perspective. However, I think Scorsese made some very strange decisions in his approach to telling this story that keep it from being his best work. His narrow focus on Molly and Ernest meant that so many important details about the broader effect of the evil inflicted upon the Osage were entirely glossed over (e.g. how many other murders took place that were never looked into and how the Osage went about protecting themselves as a community). I much preferred David Grann's take in the novel, where there was significantly more mystery and, consequently, shock factor when it is eventually revealed who the wolves responsible for the sinister murder plot really are. I also think Grann did FAR more with Jesse Plemons' character, Tom White. He's very uninteresting in the film (a farcry from his fascinating depiction in the book). Lastly, I think Molly deserved far more screen time and focus in the third act than Ernest--his turmoil really seemed to dominate the story here when it arguably shouldn't have.
If you've read the book, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts (and the thoughts of anyone else who's read it) :D
Edit: Your point about one of the film's goals being to push us to examine, recognise and resist the type of evil on display here is fantastic-I couldn't agree more. And I think it would still have been achievable if Scorsese hadn't focused so much on Molly and Ernest and had instead taken an approach similar to that of the book. I would have loved to see at least half the story told from Molly's subjective perspective so, like the book, we could get a clearer idea of how well these wolves were hiding in and manipulating the community so effectively.
I’ve read the book and get your complaints though disagree. They were initially going to make Tom the protagonist but worried that it would come off like a white savior story and that as a person, he really didn’t have any flaws. He was a straight shooter and works if you wanna tell the story of the origin of the FBI but would distract even more from the native POV. The Molly/Ernest focus is meant to be a microcosm of the community trauma and while I think it works, it can definitely vary. I feel like they narrowed the focus because it’s such a big story in scope that broadening out the character focus would get us lost
I do wish Scorcese filmed more from Molly's narrowed perspective, similar to Rosemary's Baby or Get Out, not just because the lack of information would add to the tension, but because it further forces the audience in the mindset of Molly and the Osage, living through a nightmare caused by those who are physically and sometimes intimately closest to them. That said, I do get the point of Ernest's perspective in showing the casualness and mundanity of it all to the white people of Osage. What is shocking and unthinkable to the Osage people and modern audiences was considered so normal and justified via a matter of fact belief in white supremacy that they barely thought of masking their actions and intentions. And Ernest being boring is also part of the narrative from my perspective: he wasn't some interesting guy with a particularly warped view. He's dumb and mediocre. Average at best. That shows how accessible and attractive white supremacy was and can be, even for those who don't consider themselves true believers. A part of me wishes that the film was split to more clearly evoke that dissonance: part 1 from Molly's perspective, part 2 going over the same events from Ernest's perspective as the reveal, and part 3 the trial/aftermath once the feds get involved.
@@CapitalFProductions yes, I saw that their first draft of the script more closely resembled Grann’s approach to the book. And while this would have been interesting, I actually agree with your point that focusing solely on Tom and his team would have been a mistake. But that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have built his character out a bit more and given us a bit more time with him and his team (particularly during their investigation and the trials later on - this all goes way too fast, in my opinion). I wish they’d found a way to blend the two versions of the script into something that still felt original and achieved their goal of keeping the story so personal, but also helped us appreciate some of the others involved in the story (both the oppressors and the oppressed). I actually did my own video and article on this, so if you get a chance, I’d love to hear your thoughts on them 👍🏽
@@realtalk13 I really like your points here, dude. Particularly the part about splitting the film into different perspectives - this is how I was hoping they’d done it. Maybe starting at the end during the trial and showing the various events through each of the characters subjective viewpoints, gradually revealing the atrocities as each account was dissected. Something like this would have been a riveting and original way to tell the story whilst capturing all the nuance and conflict (in my opinion, anyway 😂)
@@realtalk13 If the scope of the story was much more narrow, an approach like Get Out or RB could work but the goal was to encapsulate a really wide story set over many years. The examples mentioned are much briefer in time but at the end of the day, it's really about who's telling the story. I think a lot of the people commenting on the movie (mainly twitter) tended to get obsessed with what THEY would've done and because Scorsese didn't do it, shade was thrown. Which is a big reason I love the ending as much as I do, that it does acknowledge how limiting cinema can be when telling a story as raw as this
Very thoughtful analysis, I'm glad I watched it and thank you explaining Manifest Destiny's influence in this film.
Great video, Thomas. Helped me understand elements of the film in ways I hadn’t. Which is the point.
Crying tears of joy. LETS GOOOO! ANOTHER BANGER FROM THE GOAT!!
Thomas you are so brilliant, thank you for this.
Fire video essay Thomas! Keep it up!
I love your videos, man
Great video! Been watching your channel for a couple of years now and just wanted to give an early congratulations for reaching 1 million subscribers! Honestly, well deserved.
You have such a gift for analysing stories and presenting your own takes on this.
Fantastic piece, Thomas. Thank you!
this film was a masterpiece. it's honestly heartbreaking that Oppie took best picture of KotFM
I have not had the time to watch it yet but i am excited to eventually! This story interested me a lot
An excellent review of a significant film made by a true master of craftsmanship. Personally I think KILLERS OF THE FLOWERMOON together with SILENCE and AVIATOR are Scorsese's most underrated films.
That Garfield avatar though. I just rewatched "What the internet did to Garfield" :/
Fantastic essay, clarified many thoughts I couldn’t have put into words and reminded me of why I loved this film so much.
Genius insights. Thanks
This movie is great... because it hides 'Capitalist greed' as being purely about Caucasian greed.
Therefore progressive Caucasians can feel a righteousness cleansing pain about their past. And to resolve to do better in the future.
Dissolving them of their 'original sin' and yet still maintaining their complete obedience to and acceptance of... Capitalist greed.
It's a win-win for progressive Caucasians - and that's why they love this film.
It make progressives feel better about themselves... and that's not just entertainment, that's emotional cathartic healing too.
incredible essay.
It's why film is such an essential artform.
Wow amazing analysis. Thank you for discussing everything with such respect and awarness
I think Silence still remains one of the greatest movies ever made and there's so much thought provoking themes discussed in that project that I salute sir martin for making it possible and actually tell the story. I was sooo hyped to watch this only to realize it's really just an excessively long telling of a great tragedy with no satisfying conclusion at the end, the audience is made to leave speechless as they're left wondering why it had to be soo long in the first place! It's just criminals doing crimes and innocent people watching their family be destroyed in front of their eyes. I don't care how revered you are as a filmmaker, but that is not good storytelling. There's no depth to be found here folks, it's just depressing to watch and no payoff whatsoever for sticking around.
It was a wonderful essay, thank you ❤
Loved this film. A classic Scorsese film. Very powerful, dark and harrowing and expertly crafted and told by one of the greatest filmmaker of modern times. Adore his films.
Very interesting video. i shall be thinking about the wolves in the picture for quite some Time, thanks to you. To me the pacing in the movie goes with the representation of an evil or violence more systemic and cultural than Scorsese's mafia movies and i really appreciated his showing the slow, Insidious percolating of such violence, inversely proportional to how it IS looked down on by the "wolves". I couldn't help but regard the film as the other side to"Silence", with religious violence repeating itself over and over, dragging on to a luminous ending (killers would be the dark side). The ending reminded me both of the audience AT the end of the Wolf of Wall Street and also of Spike Lee's "wake UP" montage AT the end of BlacKkKlansman.
Ernest is the most Scrosese-like thing in the entire movie for me. David Ehrlich of Indiewire said that Scorsese has always tried to show how blurred the line is between love and exploitation. Ernest is a perfect vessel for that. As to the ending, it's clarifies Scorsese's intent with this movie so well that it shocked me. Usually Scorsese avoids this step.
I read the story a while before watching the movie and when I heard Di Caprio was on it, I was sure that he'd lay the Sheriff and be the protagonist. It was to me a shock to see that we'd be following the bad guys instead
Love of God is ultimately the same thing as loving him and loving neighbour as oneself - so by loving money first, Ernest is unable to love neighbour too
I really would love to see some essay on Hugo.
Didn't like how they made that snake Ernest essentially the main character, when the decent honorable man Tom White was the main character in the book.
amazing video as always!!
15:00 Confession is yet another theme with its root in Catholicism.
Love your videos. Thanks for sharing your perspective on such beautiful films.
Ernest not fully confessing his sins to Molly was the most heartbreaking moment in the film to me. The Bible instructs us to confess our sins to one another so that we may be healed, and that all that is hidden will be eventually brought to light. Half confessions do not bring healing. I do think that in that scene Molly loved Ernest enough to take him back even after she learned of the extent of his crimes. But by concealing even still, she knows that he has been given over to his sin and not truly repented.
Bros so close to 1M
❤ the video Thomas, you hit the nail square on.
I saw this movie a second time in theaters and now I thin it is truly a great film
When most people view movies, they try to find a character or characters that they relate to, so they can get behind them. With Flowers, the viewing majority saw their culture reflected, not in the Osage tribe but in all of those who were exploiting them. Most don't want to view themselves as the bad guy. That is only wanted if the bad guy is viewed as cool. Here the bad guys are evil and not cool at all. (example -In Goodfella's we view things from the bad guys perspective but they are so cool, so we can get behind them.) Flowers doesn't do that. It turns the mirror on the viewers and we as a culture don't like that. This is why I believe the movie was not well received, even though it was UNBELIEVABLY good.
I watched an interview where Martin Charles Scorsese sayed that the book was about the investigation but he saw the core tension in the relationship and betrayal of the main couple. This is not without criticism on my part, it does render the investigation a bit short but more importantly it diminishes the scale of the horrors. The murders were massive, 100s over 20 years, yet here we focus really on three or four especially as the investigation seems to have been well done. However it does shock me whenever it is revealed that Ernest George Burkhart was the participant, for example Scorsese repeating the murder of the Private-Investigator and the second time showing who did it. You realise wait do you care or not? Each time you almost are begging him and cheering him on to do the right thing but at the end you realise he still is the same guy who killed all of them. Brutal stuff.
I love your analysis
Awesome video dude. Made me think a lot
Fantastic analysis
The movie is about what the bad guys did. The Osage literally did nothing while they got killed off one by one.
Excellent analysis!
My BOI is literally on the CUSP, of 1MIL subscribers. LETS GOOO!
8:21 you TOTALLy missed the classic #NYCMoney&Power #Horror of #RosemarysBaby: the #BigReveal where Rosemary understands the building community in which she has been living
Such an incredible movie!
Scorsese might be by far the director with the most 'the point went through your head' number of fans of his movies.
king drop the link to that sweater you're wearing 👀
I like your sweater, dude.