Apple Original Films weighs in on Brendan Fraser’s performance in Killers Of The Flower Moon
The Oscar-winner gave a very divisive performance as attorney W.S. Hamilton in Martin Scorsese's epic
Aux News Brendan Fraser
Even though Martin Scorsese’s epic Killers Of The Flower Moon clocks in at almost 3-and-a-half hours, Brendan Fraser’s approximately seven minutes of screen time has garnered an outsized amount of attention—for pretty obvious reasons if you’ve seen the film. We won’t spoil anything here, but Fraser’s appearance as attorney W.S. Hamilton near the end of the movie is… boisterous, to say the least.
The Oscar winner’s cameo has been so divisive, in fact, that Twitter/X users have split themselves pretty neatly into two camps. Team “Fraser was bad” is sharing a lot of memes where the general thesis is “loud.” Fraser defenders are countering with their own memes that mostly boil down to “loud but good.” There hasn’t been a moment of peace between the two parties since the film arrived.
But Apple Original Films, the movie’s distributor, is trying to pacify the situation with a reminder that Fraser is playing a real person who was also, apparently, at least somewhat loud.
“Note the exclamation point,” the studio posted, along with a picture of Fraser’s character and a highlighted passage from David Grann’s novel of the same name that inspired the film. The passage reads:
A lawyer for Hale rose and demanded to confer privately with Burkhart. ‘This man is my client!’ he said. The judge asked Burkhart if this individual was really his attorney, and Burkhart, with one eye on Hale, said, “He’s not my attorney… but I’m willing to talk to him.
Still, whether or not you think Fraser performed one exclamation point or fifteen, the salient point here is that not only the attorney, but everyone in this movie really existed and really committed or was victimized by the atrocities it depicts. In the words of Christopher Cote, the film’s Osage language consultant, “For those that have been disenfranchised, they can relate, but for other countries that have their acts and their history of repression, this is an opportunity for them to ask themselves this question of morality… that’s how I feel about this film.”
36 Comments
I thought he was fine.
You would think that, DUMB BOY!
From GQ:[Fraser’s performance] is meant to be jarring. Historically, it’s the moment the larger country caught wind of all (well, some) of the shady shit that had been going down in Fairfax and Pawhuska. The movie shifts from quiet character study to courtroom drama, and Fraser’s character is the face of that shift.Makes sense to me. If people have a problem, I’ll assume it was the director’s decision, not Fraser’s. And is it necessary to use “weighs in” and “outsized” in reference to the actor?
It would be kind of funny if Fraser, himself, broke into the editing room and swapped out a more subtle take for the loud one. I imagine him in full cat-burglar regalia, rappelling down from the ceiling.
…panting as he hits the ground (literally), “This…used to be…easier…!” After taking five to catch his breath, Fraser sits as the edit bay, cracks his knuckles, and goes to work adding his biggest take, singing “I’ve got an Oscar/
“I don’t care!/
“I’ve got an Oscar/
“I can go big!”Just then, Scorsese opens the door to the edit bay and growls, “Can you keep it down in here, Brendan? Robbie Robertson you’re not….”
I was thinking more like he bursts through the wall, dressed like a giant robot, and curses constantly as he tries to swap the takes.
From what I’ve seen in recent photos, he’s really trimmed down.
It looks that way. All the same, that wording is no accident.
I don’t know much about how actual lawyers were in those times, but I thought it was kind of how “old timey” lawyers were, overly dramatic to make their points across and loud so everybody in the court can hear them.
And I think Fraser played well with the idea that the character here is a slimy lawyer too, the kind that don’t mind bending the rules and crossing the lines to win.
I often wonder if people back then were really like that, or if we just think so because of all the media portrayals of olden times. Movies have gotten a lot better at having the characters actually feel remotely like real people in just the last 60ish years. Cary Grant is a well regarded actor but most of the time I watch him in something and he’s practically a cartoon. It’s hard for me to imagine that real people back then spoke and acted like he does in his movies. The further back you go the worse it seems to get.
Yeah, I mean they invented a whole fake accent just for “proper” characters to use. In the early days of film, most actors were trained for the stage at a time when productions either had dodgy or nonexistent sound rigging, and you had to be discernible from the back row in the balcony. It shouldn’t be surprising that those early performances are really big by modern standards. The quiet naturalism that art films use now is mostly a function of actors coming up in an environment where the camera is close enough to explore your pores and the mics can hear your inner thoughts.
No, they really talked like that.Or at least a major portion of the US talked like that, especially if you were from, or went to school “Back East”. It was a major socioeconomic differentiator. If you talked like a hick or an immigrant, you were easily set apart as less than. It made people aspire to talk like the smart/rich people, and they were told they were supposed to talk that way. And god help you if your barely or didn’t speak any English.
It’s hard to say, but we’ve seen plenty of grandstanding antics on the Hill, as relayed to us through the media. I constantly marvel at the high drama from these legislative divas.
I haven’t seen the movie yet but I’m really hoping he’s doing like a Foghorn Leghorn type blowhard voice the whole time. “BOY – I SAY BOY” etc.
His character actually has more depth and development than most in that film.
I had no real notes on Fraser’s performance, but I did find both him and Lithgow showing up at the same time incredibly abrupt. I don’t normally have a problem with immersion breaking, but that pulled me right out of it.
It did feel for a second like a different movie just suddenly and inexplicably started, but the only one that really took me out of the movie was Jack White. Though, I guess that could actually be the intention there, in which case, that’s a real 200 IQ move.
He was in the movie for 5 minutes, maybe 10. Why has he become the biggest talking point?
We have become a nation of bored, judgemental bullies?
Heh, “become”. That’s funny.
It’s incredibly obvious that the character in-universe is putting on that performance, and he’s much more subdued later at the house. The only thing that threw me was his calling Leo, just six years younger than him, a “dumb boy.”
Oklahoma is considered the “vernacular south” and this is exactly what a chuffed up southern tool would say to another man a few years younger, if just to remind him the significance of those few years. It’s also a social insult and, absolutely a racist one when whites want to insult Black men (of any age).
Took the words right out of my mouth. I thought he did great and was a pleasant surprise to see him play an odious shitbag.
Nobody show these young fucks Inherit the Wind, OK? We’ll never hear the end of it.I don’t know, his performance didn’t bother that much, but part of that might have been the relief from the unrelenting misery/violence of the last hour or so that preceded it. To actually see these evil men dragged out of the shadows and subjected to the light of day (sort of…I’m sure the profit from the headrights is still in the hands of their descendents) felt incredibly catharthic.
I didn’t realize that Fraser’s performance here had spurred so much discussion. I saw the film last Friday and I guess since his screen time was so limited, his performance didn’t really register with me much one way or the other. I certainly didn’t have any issues or think “this is bad!” or anything, though.
I’m looking forward to seeing it although I have a weak stomach for violence. I’ve been trying to find a youtube of the scene but no luck. You know, people get all riled up over the smallest things. Says more about us, I think, than about the performance.
Old timey blustery white dude FTW> HATERS BTFO
Off topic, in case anyone sees this. I’ve been watching the trailer and reading up a bit. Did Earnest Burkhart really love Mollie? He conspires to murder so this just leaves me cold all over. I was victimized by my own family so this makes me sick inside. Anyone know the real story? Is it made plain in the film how this guy could do such a thing?
I think you should watch the film. I have my own opinions but I don’t want to influence your viewing.
I’d like to hear your opinions. No problem about influences. I’m a notorious lover of spoilers.
SPOILERS FOR THE REST WHO ARE READING:
I think he thought he loved her. But in the end he was a weak man. Completely morally corrupt. He saw her and the children as his family, but he didn’t see her mother and sisters as also his family. And beyond that, her tribe; who stood by him and married them in the traditional ways. It’s been a week since I’ve seen it, but I don’t remember a single time he was cruel to Mollie’s face. And I think Mollie knew he was a bit of a moron, but she didn’t know how empty he was. There’s a scene between them at the end of the film that represents how clueless he was.
Thank you. Your summary sounds really insightful. Love is a very peculilar beast, isn’t it? He knew the tribe had wealth and people can become very confused about what it is they really love and what love really is when wealth and power are involved. I hope I can see it this week.
The lawyer character was a bad, over-actor. Not Fraser.
I thought he was OK even though the last movie I saw him in was “The Mummy”. He’s a lot older and fatter. Other than that OK as an actor.
Courtroom antics have an origin. They didn’t spontaneously erupt from Ally McBeal.
Wow. A hammy lawyer in a movie? Does Fraser even know acting? /s