Osage crew members offer some measured critiques of Killers Of The Flower Moon
Martin Scorsese's Killers Of The Flower Moon, premiering October 20, earned the trust of Osage Nation even if it is imperfect
Aux News Osage
Killers Of The Flower Moon, Martin Scorsese’s highly anticipated historical tragedy, will finally premiere in theaters on October 20. Based on the book of the same name by David Gann, the story concerns the “Reign of Terror,” the murder of dozens of members of the Osage Nation in the 1920s. Scorsese worked closely with the Osage to craft the film, and clearly established trust and respect with the tribe. Of course, that doesn’t make the movie completely above reproach.
“I was nervous about the release of the film. Now that I’ve seen it, I have some strong opinions. As an Osage, I really wanted this to be from the perspective of Mollie and what her family experienced, but I think it would take an Osage to do that,” Christopher Cote, the movie’s Osage language consultant, told The Hollywood Reporter on the red carpet. “Martin Scorsese, not being Osage, I think he did a great job representing our people, but this history is being told almost from the perspective of Ernest Burkhart and they kind of give him this conscience and kind of depict that there’s love. But when somebody conspires to murder your entire family, that’s not love. That’s not love, that’s just beyond abuse.”
Leonardo DiCaprio plays Ernest, who is roped into a scheme against the wealthy Osage by his uncle (played by Robert De Niro) that leads to the murder of his wife Mollie’s (Lily Gladstone) family. “I think in the end, the question that you can be left with is: How long will you be complacent with racism? How long will you go along with something and not say something, not speak up, how long will you be complacent?” Cote said. “I think that’s because this film isn’t made for an Osage audience, it was made for everybody, not Osage. 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, and that’s how I feel about this film.”
Janis Carpenter, another Osage language consultant for Killers, told the outlet she has “mixed feelings” seeing the culture represented on screen amid such a tragic, traumatic story. “Some things were so interesting to see, and we have so many of our tribal people that are in the movie that it’s wonderful to see them,” she said. “But then there are some things that were pretty hard to take.”
A statement from the Osage Nation on its website notes that in the film, “The language you hear is taught by Osage Nation Language Teachers. The traditional Wahzhazhe clothing you see is made by Osage artists. The landscape is the Osage Nation Reservation.” The statement adds that the tribe is seeking federal legislation to have headright interests returned to the Osage. “We are not relics,” the statement reads. “The Osage Nation is thriving on our Reservation in Northeast Oklahoma—a people of strength, hope, and passion, honoring the stories of the past and building the world of the future.”
To that end, Osage Nation chief Geoffrey Standing Bear told The Guardian that he expressed to Scorsese that the film should include “Our language, our culture–and not to include other tribal ways. We respect other tribal ways, but we have our own. And even among ourselves, just to keep our traditions going day to day, month to month, year to year is tough.”
Scorsese’s determination to film on Osage land was the first bridge built between the filmmaker and the tribe, and the “door kept opening” from there, Standing Bear said, noting that around 100 Osage were extras in the movie. The result, for the chief, was stirring. “I didn’t realize when I was watching the movie that I, personally, have failed in being fully sympathetic to these families who did lose people. What must they be going through when they see this movie, and see their grandfather shot in the back of the head on the big screen?” He said. “Or when they see the large family groups of cousins and aunts and uncles at our ceremonies, and think ‘My family, we’re small. We should have been as large as anybody else’s, but our people were all murdered.’ I never thought of that aspect of it. This movie’s brought out such things, and that’s painful. So yeah, this story is something for all of us to learn from.”
101 Comments
No one cares. This kind of nothing content isn’t interesting to anyone. Anything said here has been said literally a million times before.
No one cares fatfuck
I completely agree with Christopher Cote’s statement. I am a white woman who saw an advanced screening last night and came out of the film feeling like it had completely missed the mark by not taking the opportunity to center around Molly’s and her family’s experience — especially considering the transcendent level of performance that Lily Gladstone and her fellow native actors give in this film. I found the film overly indulgent in telling the white man’s story and recounting the history of that time still through the white man’s lens. I do encourage people to see the film if only so that more stories centered on non-white protagonists and histories can be told, but Scorsese really missed the mark on this one…what could have been a brilliantly acted (by Lily Gladstone) and compelling story sharing an unrepresented perspective was instead the same old same old.
Use more buzzwords, it comes off really intelligently.
I see you’re spazzing out extra hard today lol. Pretty funny to see you go to all this effort and then have no one care or interact with you in any way.
Shut up dummy
Shut up bitch
I understand wanting a story to be told from the underrepresented perspective, and I also want underrepresented groups to get more opportunities to tell their own stories (NOT because people can’t tell stories about groups they’re not a part of, but because generally speaking they have less incentive to tell stories from other people’s perspectives). But I’m not sure how Scorsese “missed the mark” because the story isn’t told from the perspective you wanted. Not that he’s immune from criticism, but it sounds like he hit the mark he was aiming for according to a lot of people.Nor for that matter am I sure how seeing this film helps stories centered on non-white protagonists and histories get told. I would think seeing films that are already centered on non-white protagonists and histories (first example that comes to mind: The Woman King) would do a lot more to help get more of those movies made.
But I’m not sure how Scorsese “missed the mark” because the story isn’t told from the perspective you wanted. Not that he’s immune from criticism, but it sounds like he hit the mark he was aiming for according to a lot of people.Sometimes aiming low makes hitting the target easier. But it doesn’t mean you hit the best target.
This is the laziest of all criticisms. No one owes you anything in their art.
She said she’s a white woman – she’s used to people just kowtowing to her every demand, so she can’t understand why the film isn’t tailor-made for her.
A white liberal (the word has been fucked with so hard I can’t claim it for myself, I’m a Democrat I’ll say, a traditional bleeding-heart type, but not a “progressive”), the only group that when surveyed ranks themselves below other groups. A lot of self-hatred and white guilt and attempts to self-flagellate by dismissing most if not all white people involved in cultural content and its production.
“But I’m not sure how Scorsese ‘missed the mark’ because the story isn’t told from the perspective you wanted”I don’t think it’s about what *you* wanted. It’s about thinking about stories that need to be told because they have been silenced for generations vs. stories that have been told a bunch. White men’s stories have been told a bunch. Native American murder victims, not so much. I think that’s a valid conversation to have. You say he’s not immune from criticism, but indicate that he’s immune from this particular criticism just because a lot of other people liked the white man perspective? That doesn’t make sense. He didn’t miss the mark because it wasn’t a perspective the OP wanted, but conversely he didn’t hit the mark just because it was a perspective you liked.
IMO, “the mark” is whatever emotions the film is trying to elicit in the audience. For example, if a character is supposed to make the audience laugh, but the character tells very unfunny jokes, that would be an obvious example of missing the mark. So I don’t agree that Scorsese “missed the mark” because he didn’t take an opportunity to tell the story from a different perspective than the one he did. That’s not me indicating that Scorsese is immune from that particular criticism, that’s me disagreeing with the OP, especially since she still encourages people to see the movie. I generally don’t recommend movies that I think completely miss their mark. Maybe that’s just me though. White men’s stories have been told a bunch. Native American murder victims, not so much. I think that’s a valid conversation to have. I agree, and I think Christopher Cote is right that it would take an Osage to properly tell the story from the perspective of Mollie and what her family experienced. I think that if Scorsese had tried to tell this story that way, his own biases and blind spots might have been obvious. Fortunately, multiple movies about the same story but told from different perspectives than each other have been made throughout the history of cinema, and I hope that an Osage filmmaker gets the chance to make that movie someday.And for context, I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I have been looking forward to it since it was announced that it was being made. I first heard about the story a few years ago and was deeply compelled by it. Maybe I’ll agree that Scorsese doesn’t hit the mark, but unfortunately I won’t find out for a few days.
“IMO”And that’s fine, in your opinion. The OP has a different opinion as to what “the mark” is, and she explained the ways in which she thought the film was lacking. You don’t have to agree with whether or not he missed the mark, but I don’t think your criticism was a fair representation of her comment.
If I could go back, I would drop the phrase “the perspective you wanted” and reword the rest of that sentence because her point is that the perspective that Scorsese presented was “the same old same old,” but I don’t think your criticism was a fair representation of my comment either.
If you had dropped that phrase, I wouldn’t have had cause to criticize your comment in the first place. So I don’t see how it could be unfair since it was only criticizing the part you agree shouldn’t have been in there, but comme ci comme ca.
A case study in how no one could ever, ever get it right. Tell a good story and quit trying to appease every single bandwidth.
It seems like the production team working closely with the Osage was very appreciated, though. Of course the Osage would have complicated feelings, it’s a movie about an extensive scheme to murder Osage rights-holders for their money and property.
Or, maybe, people can discuss a movie critically and it can still be a good movie? And it’s good that the filmmakers tried to appease multiple relevant groups, who can and should express their complex feelings on the subject?I dunno, just throwing ideas out there.
Yeah, the clearest critique here — in which the guy still basically says this is an understandable call given who the audience is — is that the movie goes out of its way to center a sympathetic white protagonist in a movie about the slaughter of another group.
It’s a critique which has been made countless times about countless movies, it has a very obvious fix, and it’s not a good look when whiners on the internet throw up their hands and complain about how IMPOSSIBLE it is to please anybody nowadays whenever they hear it.
While Leo is the protagonist I hardly found him sympathetic, I thought he was a POS from the jump. All the white people are horrible awful terrible people, the only “good” ones are the FBI guys. I find this criticism that is in many of the negative reviews of the movie to be a bit absurd. It’s about murders, so to show the murderers and the plot and then the comeuppance is a crucial element I would think, or at least that’s the common structure of murder shows.
I can’t comment on every negative review, but Cote’s point seems to be that Burkhart is depicted as loving his wife while simultaneously being complicit in a conspiracy to murder all her relatives, which seems a bit Hollywood and is hard to take as the descendants of the victims. That seems pretty measured and understandable, even if it doesn’t personally bug you.If a serial killer helped murder your mom, dad, and grandpa and then someone made a movie about how he was just a weak man who really loved your grandma, it’d be fair to have some objections.
He was more than just weak and that was shown from the beginning as well. Not fighting with you, just having convo, one of his first lines of dialogue is how much he loves money. And if there was a movie about my family’s murder I’d be pissed if they didn’t show how they did it and how they were caught, which is what the back half of this movie is. Cote’s, and it’s almost not even a criticism, almost closer to a wistful pondering of what he may have wished to see a bit more of, I mean it’s as mild as you can get, because he’s right too in that this movie is made for a general audience and tells a story of a horrendous murderous period that includes both the killers and the killed. If he had made the movie some are saying he should have, it would be the length of the entire run of Game of Thrones. I really admire (hard to say enjoy, even though as a moviegoer I guess I should say enjoy) this film as art, but the material is very heavy and I’m unsure I’ll be revisiting it soon if ever.
There’s nothing even remotely sympathetic about any of the white characters. They’re transparently pieces of shit.
“Didn’t read. Everyone offended. Talking hurt feelings. Me cry.”
Wow, did you really come here just to air your grievances about people who worked on a movie having constructive criticism about that movie, which you yourself have never seen?
Sure, and by that logic the story could have been greatly improved if the white conspirators and killers were defeated by Tyrannosaurs in F-15’s.
?? This is a weirdly angry reaction? They didn’t call for a boycott of the movie. They worked on the movie and with the producer. What about this is pissing you off so? All they did was note that the story was not told from an Osage perspective and that seeing the movie caused them to have empathy for the people who lost family members. Why does the idea of having empathy cause this reaction in you?
“Why can’t you just be empathetic and morally good and right about everything like me? It’s not that hard. Jeez.”
How I’m reading this is that the movie’s turned out to be a respectful and sensitive telling of this piece of Osage history. It sounds like it’s imperfect, which really is a given with an Italian American director (albeit an amazing one) rather than an Osage director at the helm. The Osage quoted seem to have some pretty tempered critiques. It’s a high-wire act, but it really sounds like Scorsese’s did a fine job. Really looking forward to this.
The reason it’s “imperfect” is the ethnicity of the director? So you’d admit that this has nothing to do with any of the actual content of the movie?
A person who shares a cultural background with the culture a story is about might have a better grasp on it. Shocking insight, I know.
Chandler Binge is correct, although I thought that was quite obvious for nontrolls.
It is. I really don’t know why I responded to this waste of oxygen. I’m just human and have my moments of weakness, I guess.
You’re so brave and such a good person. It’s so cool to not judge art on it’s actual merits, but rather on the ethnicity of the people who made it. What a brave, important stance. And of course anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Right?
You *are* trolling, because you’re misrepresenting arguments into ones you’d rather be rebutting, trying to appear like a hero by shooting at imaginary fish you’re pretending are in a barrel, or just to be an ass. Now, you’re probably neither a hero nor an ass, though, just someone who gets worked up online, aping bad discussion tactics you learned from bad talk shows and pundits. It ain’t a good look. Even if you got the goodness of Tom Hanks in your heart, it ain’t showing through. Chill.Now, Denzel said exactly the same thing OP is talking about here, talking about the exact same director, and he probably knows better than you or I:
Nah. And you sound far less intelligent than you imagine.
You fu#$!&# suck, dude. Completely oblivious your own ignorance and lack of logical faculty.
You’re such a good person. And you’re right – anyone who disagrees with you about the nature of art is a “waste of oxygen”. That’s definitely something a good person would say.
I’ve taken your whole body of work in the Kinja comments into account for my evaluation of you.
Do you realize what a deeply embarrassing person you are?
May you watch everyone you care about die slowly, in agony
Damn dude, you’ve gone and upsetted the sexiest man alive.
Yeah this dipshit responds to everything with a sarcastic “sooo brave.”What a little bitch.
So any person with a specific cultural background would have done a better job of making this movie than Martin Scorsese – one of the greatest directors in history? And if that’s not what you’re saying, then what are you saying?
This person was brought on as a consultant to the film, along with plenty of other Osage consultants, because one of the things that makes Scorsese such a brilliant director is full knowledge and acknowledgement of his bind spots.I’m going to hazard a guess that a member of the Osage tribe who not only saw the film but actively worked on it is going to have a more insightful and nuanced view of the final product and the person who made it than some random internet commentator who hasn’t even seen the fucking thing yet.
I’m unclear on how this is a response to anything I actually wrote? The person I responded to made the claim that the film was “imperfect” because of the ethnicity of the director, and that it would have been perfect had there been “an Osage director at the helm”. Nothing I said even referenced the consultant.
You’re a child molester. KYS
He’s a troll, y’all. Just dismiss him and save your blood pressure.
Perhaps that an imaginary Osage director with the skill of Martin Scorsese might have felt comfortable enough to center the movie directly on the Osage experiencing the crime, rather than on one of the white people involved in it?
The movie is centered on the Osage.
Isn’t the central character Ernest Burkhart?
Tbf I haven’t seen the movie. I’m just going on reports that the movie was “rewritten to center the Osage people in the story”. That’s the extent of my understanding.
I felt like Molly was the center of the movie, if not the person with the most screen time. And in interviews Scorsese and Leo (who was also exec producer) say that she is “the heart and soul of the film” which accounts for her (Lily Gladstone, who is incredible) now going for Best Actress and not Supporting when it comes Oscar time.
Shut up saggy
Why wouldn’t an Italian American have deep insight into the plight of the Native American?
(/s, just in case)
It’s so bizarre to see race essentialism being touted as progressive. Consider that individuals are more than just their race.
Wow dismissing my comment. Didn’t realize I was speaking to a child.(/s, just in case – as it’s obvious that you’re an old autistic man who just happens to act like a child lol)
Damn I didn’t even get a chance to dismiss that comment and still got a petulant whine for it.
Super brave. You’re a terrible writer.
It sounds like he tried, and they tried, and I love to see the working together here.That said, I won’t be seeing this. 🙁 Not because they did anything wrong, but the trailers didn’t really say what it was about, and now that I know what it’s about, it looks sad and just really hard to watch. I’m sure it’ll be great, though.
For me it’s a bit like Schindler’s List, a great movie that is well made and performed and shot and all of it. It’s a great work of art and I’m glad I went and saw it at the theater. But I won’t be watching it again most likely.
Yeah I have a lot of movies on that list. Like “that was great you’re a genius I hate it.” lol
Italian American director (albeit an amazing one)but is he as amazing as Peyton Reed, director of cinematic masterpiece Ant-Man 3?
But no Meryl Streep?
I don’t think he’s ever cast her in one of his movies. Probably doesn’t want the over acting.
Well at least it’s bound to be better than the Jimmy Stewart version.
The only problem with the movie, it sounds like, is that it’s told from a white perspective. That’s a fair bit of criticism from the Osage, when it could have very easily been told from Molly’s perspective, and probably would have made more sense to do so. But then Scorsese could have never directed it, because he’s not able to culturally connect with these particular stories. It sounds like Scorsese did as much as he could to fairly represent the Osage tribe, shooting on their land, casting hundreds of Osage extras, and making sure everything was as authentic as possible, which in my opinion are the steps necessary to take when filming a movie about an already-oppressed group being more oppressed by white people. Hopefully this movie opens doors to more Native directors and actors that will make great art as well, so that they can actually tell their stories from the source.
The problem for me is that Scorsese made Kundun from the Tibetan perspective and did that just fine, so he’s capable. My suspicion is that the subject matter made him uneasy so he retreated to a comfort zone, making movies about sociopathic white men who self-destruct.
There is literally nothing stopping an Osage person from making a movie about the Osage people. Nothing. Guess it’s just cheaper to complain. I do it in the comment sections everyday, cost me nothing.
I guess you’ve never heard of money, eh, you fucking r*tarded f*ggot child molester?
“There is literally nothing stopping an Osage person from making a movie about the Osage people.”Literally nothing besides studio backing, publicity, and the millions of dollars they’d need to do so. Other than that, though, literally nothing.
Bingo. Money, an established stake and personnel familiar with the medium, the opportunity to set up and maintain such, etc. As the SAG strike shows, the current power-holders there are much more interested in pushing folks away from having a living in that industry than allowing any newcomers to do so.
l
If Scorcese had centered the story directly on the Osage, told it entirely from their perspective, everyone would be saying he had no right to do so as a white person and it would be beyond offensive to think he could. There’s no pleasing everyone.
White people make movies about minorities all the time and people in those groups don’t complain when those movies are thoughtful and well-made.
The OP was talking about the AV Club, not people.
that was then, this is now.
I’ve never heard anyone complain about Rolf De Heer, aye.
That’s not really true and hasn’t been for like 20 years.
This is a nonsense thing to say, and furthermore, even if it were true, why say it? Why is “there’s no pleasing everyone” always the fallback? Who cares? He didn’t try to please everyone, AND they didn’t say they didn’t like the movie or that Scorsese is a bad guy. They said he worked hard to take them into account and work with them and they appreciate that. They are allowed to have what is actually a relatively mild critique of the movie. They’re allowed to say “I would have liked it if more of our story was told” and “gosh, it really makes me empathize with the victims.” Those aren’t damning criticisms and they didn’t intend them to be. It’s okay if “there’s no pleasing everyone.” It’s also okay to try to please people who have been oppressed (and literally genocided) for centuries. It’s okay to make that effort, even if you think you’ll fall short.
If the story didn’t center on a white man’s fee-fees, Scorsese would never make it. Doubt he ever would have heard about it in the first place. It just not his thing. And I’m fine with him staying in his lane. Turns out this time it helps shine a light on a part of American heritage that nearly got completely buried. The very mild points that some of the Osage folks are making are just that – mild. Very, very mild. They aren’t making demands or crying or anything else the FPMs are pretending.
That’s because these statements are clearly part of a press strategy by the studio to address this issue in the most forgiving light possible – while making it seem like this came up organically – so they don’t have to address it in public in the future.
Shut up baldy
Imagine being this proudly fucking stupid.
We don’t have to imagine. We can just read your comments.
Yeah I’m not sure why people are getting so up in arms. They praise the movie and offer this one very, very mild criticism. I too would love it if he had chosen to center the Osage! But I also had no idea about this massacre until just now, so if nothing else it will encourage some people to look further into it and pull the blanket off this bit of history.
No one is “up in arms”.
What would it look like to have “centered” the Osage? How would it be different than what it is now? I just saw it yesterday, I’m not beefing with you but I see this criticism in all the negative reviews of the movie and I’m just wondering what someone who agrees would have done differently.
I haven’t seen it, but to answer your question I’d look to the text of this article here:“Martin Scorsese, not being Osage, I think he did a great job representing our people, but this history is being told almost from the perspective of Ernest Burkhart”As for what someone who agrees would have done differently, I wouldn’t have done anything differently as I’m not a filmmaker and would not be making a film. I’m just saying what it would have been nice to see. Watching another white man struggle with his conscience is not a story I personally am begging to see.
Well maybe someone will make a movie where a bunch of non-white people horrendously murder a group of folks. I’m sure that will be more amenable to people’s tastes.
It’s interesting that that’s the leap you chose to make from my comment. You asked a question. I’m sorry that you did so even though you didn’t want to hear the answer. That was a bad choice on your part.
Nah, but perhaps you should see it so you can make a more informed decision.
I already said I’m not going to see it, but I have absolutely no problem accepting the words of the Osage people who have seen it. You asked what they would have done differently, and I told you what they said they would have done differently. Again, I’m sorry you didn’t want an answer to your own question, and I’m sorry you didn’t read the article. You were clearly lying when you said “ I’m not beefing with you.” You were just looking for an argument on a four day old comment, which is sad. It was stupid of me to take your expression of genuine curiosity in good faith. That was a bad choice on my part.
Ah, now this is a really nice piece of polite yet angry nonsense. You did not tell me any such thing, you quoted the piece with Cote’s words that were “but this history is being told almost from the perspective of Ernest Burkhart” which is not what he would have done differently but a criticism of what’s there. It may imply that he would have told the story from a different perspective, but that’s not a description of a movie where the Osage is “centered.”
My post was genuine curiosity, and then you let a bunch of nonsense tumble out about not seeing the movie and yet standing firm and doubling down to a person who has in fact seen the movie. You then say the usual Progressive Yurt Dwelling part about “aw man, white people are in it” and you put an exclamation point on the part about the centering of Osage, why such an emphatic point if you have no plans of seeing it? If you truly are not going to see it why on earth keep talking about it? What could you possibly have to say other than parroting your oh so aware white-guilters that bully and harangue and talk down to those who would DARE not share your every belief about society. You answered nothing and instead met my initially polite query with SJW sounding nonsense. So yeah I made a snarky comment because it was just so damn easy to do, oh you don’t like the idea of white people murdering people? OK, here’s some non-white people murdering others. But that got you big mad because even though we both know full well that I don’t think you really want to see that movie, I was trying to show you your knee-jerk thought about white people being in the movie as the absurdity it is, because this is a movie about things that really happened, murders that really happened, and in such a story you must talk about and show and explain the murderers as well as the murdered. To show the atrocity in its full measure you must see how they did it, why they did it, and what happened to them afterward. Ernest Burkhart and William Hale and the rest are a very important part of this story, without them there is no story. The worst choice you made was to imply that I am acting in bad faith in this exchange. I’m telling you what the movie shows from the perspective of someone who has seen it, which you have not. And will not. You have CENTERED the fact that you will not see it. So perhaps you will now shut up about it. And shut up about me. And go live your smug righteous white-guilt laden life.
Mine’s angry? I thought we started that with your sarcastic response to my answering your question. Again, I apparently can’t say it enough, I truly regret, for you, that you asked a question that you didn’t want an answer to. I truly regret, for you, that you lied about not wanting beef and about being genuinely curious. If you had not told those lies, I never would have answered your question and we could have avoided wasting each other’s time. But you did, so we have. It’s a mistake we don’t have to continue making, however. Have a good day.
I regret that you never answered the question and confused that you continue to claim to have done so. And as another Yurt-dweller once said to me, with the same glib look on her face as you likely have when you type, “Have the day you deserve.”
Awesome, thank you so much!
Denzel Washington perfectly explained this situation long ago. Ironically he in fact named Scorcese when giving examples.
Wait – you’re saying that Martin Scorsese chose to make a movie from the point of view of a criminal!?