Why did Killers Of The Flower Moon leave the Oscars empty-handed?
Scorsese's epic about the Osage murders didn't win a single Oscar last night, but that doesn't mean the film won't endure
Aux Features Killers Of The Flower Moon
The tone was set for Killers Of The Flower Moon from the very beginning of last night’s Oscars ceremony. “Your movies were too long this year,” host Jimmy Kimmel quipped in his opening monologue. “When I went to see Killers Of The Flower Moon, I had my mail forwarded to the theater. Killers Of The Flower Moon is so long, in the time it takes you to watch it, you could drive to Oklahoma and solve the murders yourself.”
Director Martin Scorsese, or—far more importantly—the fact that those 206 minutes depicted the horrific and systemic violence leveled against Native Americans in our country were not mentioned once. Kimmel did give “Robert [De Niro]’s co-star” Lily Gladstone a shoutout for her historic achievement of being the first Native American woman ever nominated for an Oscar, but even that was used to set up a hollow joke about murder hornets, of all things.
Considering this attitude, it wasn’t all that surprising that KOTFM took home zero awards last night, but it is galling. Scorsese’s epic was undoubtedly one of the best films of the year. Gladstone, Leonardo DiCaprio (who wasn’t nominated nor in attendance), and De Niro all gave stirring performances as Mollie Burkhart, Ernest Burkhart, and Ernest’s smarmy uncle William Hale respectively, while actors like Tantoo Cardinal and Cara Jade Myers, who perfectly portrayed Mollie’s murdered family, didn’t receive as much as a peep this award season. The movie was gorgeous and important and yes, long, but at three hours and twenty-six minutes it was only twenty-six minutes longer than Oppenheimer—the night’s big winner—and earned its runtime by tackling a topic as weighty as genocide. There’s no other way around it: KOTFM was snubbed, and unfairly so.
Three theories of why Killers Of The Flower Moon was shut out
While we’ll never know for sure, there are a couple of factors that could have contributed to KOTFM’s terrible night. The easiest to argue—and one many on the internet already have—is that most of the roughly 10,000 voting members of the Academy aren’t the biggest fans of Martin Scorsese. The director has been nominated 16 times and won only once, for The Departed in 2006. His last film, 2019's The Irishman, was nominated for ten awards and also completely shut out the Oscars. The motivation behind this indifference is less clear. Do newer voters think he’s pretentious or that watching his art is like “homework,” as one Twitter/X user suggested? Have his Marvel comments actually pissed that many people off? We’ll probably never know, but it’s certainly an odd look for the Academy.
The second potential explanation is that a lot of people put KOTFM and Oppenheimer in the same mental bucket (both filled the “legendary director, historic biopic, long Oscar bait film” niche), and Oppenheimer just edged out KOTFM in most of its categories. We’re not here to debate whether those wins were justified or not—Oppenheimer was obviously also a huge, well-crafted project—but it would explain why films like Poor Things and Anatomy Of A Fall that were both so visually and tonally different seemed to generate more of their own buzz.
The third and most challenging potential explanation is that KOTFM forced audiences to reckon with a far stickier legacy than some of its peers. Oppenheimer took on a similarly shameful moment in American history but didn’t actually show it on screen. Holocaust film The Zone Of Interest took home two very deserved awards last night (Sound and International Feature Film), but as of this writing director Jonathan Glazer’s speech decrying the violence in Gaza is still not available to watch on the Oscars YouTube page. (The Academy did not immediately respond to The A.V. Club’s request for comment on this.) While cinema can be used to reflect society, sometimes people would rather not look in the mirror.
What does this mean for Killers Of The Flower Moon’s legacy?
Even if the Oscars are Hollywood’s biggest night, they’re certainly not its only night. While getting a statue is nice, it doesn’t make or break the success of a director or actor. Plenty of great movies didn’t win a single Oscar and even more snubbed actors have gone on to incredible careers. Lily Gladstone may not be this year’s Best Actress, but she’ll be back. The late Robbie Robertson’s score was an all-timer and the Osage Singers’ performance of “Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” last night was a wonderful moment of representation, even if it was brief. By the time the 2025 Oscars roll around, few will remember that John Cena was naked or that Ryan Gosling brought Slash up on stage for his performance of “I’m Just Ken.” But they will remember Killers Of The Flower Moon.
244 Comments
Probably because it wasn’t a very good movie. It was fine. Lily Gladstone was great. It covered an important story. It has one of the greatest directors of all time. But, it won’t be a well remembered film and borderlines on POC suffering porn, which is a dying genre.
The only Oscar it remotely deserved to win was Gladstone, and a win for her would have been earned. That said, Emma Stone redefine an archetype in Poor Things. Bella Baxter is a name that will live with cinephiles forever. there is no issue with her win either.
“It’s too long!” cries the drooling audience before going back to their 7th consecutive hour of Ugly People On Dates: British Cake Edition.
This is a reductive take. While I loved Killers and didn’t find the length burdensome, it’s a bad faith take to say that people who can’t get on board are lowbrow idiots (which is what I interpret your comment to be saying).
Three and a half hours is difficult. Many people don’t have that in their day to give all at once (as opposed to say, junk tv which can be enjoyed in ten minute bits while child-rearing). The subject matter also makes it punishing in ways it wouldn’t otherwise be. It’s my favorite movie of the year and I have yet to carve out time to rewatch it…because it’s hard to do. I don’t want him to have cut a minute from it, but if you release a film of this length and weight, you have to know a lot of people will never interact with it.
So basically, you can like long movies without thinking that those who don’t are jerks. Shades of grey, my friend, shades of grey.
Oppenheimer was an excellent long movie, that didn’t feel long. Dune 2 was an excellent long movie, that didn’t feel long. Killers felt long.
Oppenheimer actually isn’t a good movie lol
A few points.
First a minor one: Oppenheimer is about 26 minutes shorter and Dune 2 about 40 minutes shorter.
Second point: I loved Oppenheimer and a big part of it is that it flies (Chris Nolan is a master at pacing) but it’s going for a totally different effect. If Killers was paced that way, it wouldn’t work nearly as well. Killers is the way it should be. It’s a slow meditation and grief, oppression and greed. It feels long because it is long. Oppenheimer is paced like an action film because it’s about the rush of scientific discovery and then the existential crash that can come after (forgive a super simplified summary of both much more complex films). But the point is, Killers is a less commercial product by design (which doesn’t make it better in any inherent way) and that’s okay.
Third point: Actually the more I think about it you’re kind of agreeing with me so forgive the tone of points one and two, haha.
I hated OPPY. Didn’t know what the BIG deal was and that little bomb explosion was anticlimatic.
The intercutting between two hearings as they were trying to build the bomb created tension and momentum and made the film not feel long, but once it ended i thought the bomb-making parts were way too long and took away time from getting to know the man better.
I thought it was a very well done movie and Gladstone was spectacular, but we watched it at home and took a bathroom break at one point and I remember pausing it and thinking, “Jeebus, how is there still an hour left of this movie??” It didn’t feel like there was enough of the story left to tell to fill a whole hour.
Completely disagree. I thought Oppenheimer felt its length and then some, while Killers seemed to totally breeze by. I’d actually argue Killers is too short; it should’ve gotten a 5-6 hour miniseries treatment on ATV+ with a trimmed down theatrical cut, a la Bergman’s Scenes From a Marriage or Fanny and Alexander.
“So basically, you can like long movies without thinking that those who don’t are jerks”
And he, for one, DOES think that who don’t are jerks. Why does it sound like you’re trying to kind of police his opinion
I’ve seen it twice (once in theaters, once on streaming) and watching at home was spaced out over a couple days. It’s a masterful movie, but the only Oscar I think it deserved was for Lily Gladstone.Mainly I just think complaining about a movie’s length is dumb in an era when everything you watch at home can be paused and picked back up whenever you feel like it.
Totally fair. Please forgive what was a too combattive response to your original joke-y comment.
Also, no movie has any claim on your time if you don’t want to watch it. “Important” movies are still just entertainment.I say that as someone who really liked Killers of the Flower Moon. But I liked it because the setting was unique, the acting was great, and it’s interesting to have a protagonist whose main trait is being infuriatingly passive. I saw it because I wanted to, not because I had any feeling that I should watch it.
“to say that people who can’t get on board are lowbrow idiots”Ironically, though not surprisingly, this is the take favored by some of the dumbest commenters around.
If you are an intelligent person you enjoy the films of Martin Scorsese. If you don’t like Scorsese films you are a dumb asshole.
or maybe the voters just thought there were better movies this year? this was a good year for film
A movie that you have to pay attention to in order to understand is not the same as half-assedly watching a reality show. Reasonable people can like both or prefer movies that are shorter.
This is a very common and unfortunately silly response to complaints about running times that ignores the difference between how two different mediums operate and the disparate expectations viewers have for them.
Wait, there’s a British Cake Edition? Which streamer is it on?!?
ContentPlus+
Becasue it was too long and frequently dull?It’s an admirable film, but not necessarily a good one.
The length didn’t bother me, but it was a dull film. Clearly AV Club is head over heals for it, but Killers was not the best film in many regards. Lily’s win would have been history making and she was well deserving of the nom. After her run at the other shows, I was surprised she didn’t take it home last night.
Sorry you are stupid.
Nah, you have bad taste.
Well argued!
Now tell us about the hidden subtext in RL Stine’s “Goosebumps” series. Come on now, you know you’ve yelled at 11 year olds about it.
Scorsese needs to be ruthless with editing like he was during his peak years.
Your first theory is probably the most likely. Your second theory, maybe. Your third really seems to be a stretch, especially considering how many awards 12 Years a Slave won three Oscars.
I’ll see your three Oscars for 12 Years a Slave and raise you five for Green Book. The Oscars do love movies about historical tragedies, but they do love them in particular ways.
As I love stepping on social media landmines, I still think that, as much as I admired and was moved by repeated viewings of 12 Years a Slave, seeing the IMAX 3D presentation of Gravity was the most immersive experience I’ve ever had at the movies. It felt like space. I wasn’t the only one, it was pin drop silent in a packed theater. And to learn later that Cuaron had to make a full version of the film first in animation, then one in digital effects, just to get the final product…well, that felt like “outstanding achievements in the art of filmmaking.” I await your bouncing bettys.
Yeah, the Academy does love white savior dramas, but if the argument is that a look at our ugly past turns off voters, I think other winning films undercut that. Maybe 12 Years fared better because Solomon Northup eventually got back his freedom?
I wondered about that! The movie also came out a year after the murder of Trayvon Martin, so that iteration of Black Lives Matter discourse might have added a bit of urgency.
Or it is because 12 Years a Slave is an overall much better movie than Killers of the Flower Moon.
This ^^^. Every bit this.
You could include both of those movies and argue the academy’s interest in stories like these are completely performative. Lily Gladstone was obviously not going to win the award this year. She spent most of her screentime with the same facial expression and/or poisoned in bed.
And an argument could be made that the nobility of a film’s intent isn’t/shouldn’t be a factor in determining its quality. A whole lot of middling-to-awful movies have been made with the best intentions. Detroit, anyone? Ghost of Mississippi? Crash?!?
I guess they only had room for one 3 hour film to win the award.
I’m sorry, but I can’t watch these, if you ask me to watch something for 3 hours, you better be as perfect as the Godfather.
Standards too high? Too bad, crap on marvel movies and stick to your established bias.
this makes me think of that bit in Barbie where they distract the Kens by pretending to have never seen the godfather and are eager to both see the film and to listen to Ken’s running commentary about how great it is
The most important lesson from KOTFM is how dangerous weak men can be.
I think the most interesting part of the movie was having such a passive protagonist. At least some of the runtime is justified, I think, by the need to give us enough time with Ernest to really draw out behavior that would otherwise suggest wild character shifts. One some level, he seems to truly care about Mollie. But he’s also just stupid, greedy, and incredibly weak-willed, so his feelings for her are no obstacle to him poisoning her, especially when someone else pressures him to do it.The character has that in common with the protagonist in The Irishman, which I didn’t like nearly as much. But there, Frank is again someone who does a lot of violent things because people told him to. He winds up killing one of his best friends because another friend asked him to, and he’s given up on thinking of himself as someone who gets to decide whether to murder someone.
I think the most interesting part of the movie was having such a passive protagonist.You hit the nail on the head.
I had discussions some months ago about Lily being a rather passive protaognist, and the person I was talking with didn’t understand what I meant. He assumed that by passive I meant that she had no agency, and I had to explain to him that passive merely means that much of her actions are spurred along in response to words and deeds of others, rather than herself being the causal factor behind the major inflection points of the narrative. She certainly had agency, but she was passive in the sense that, had not these things happened to her immediate and extended family and tribe, Molly would’ve lived a purely domesticated life without much fuss.
There’s nothing wrong with building a movie around a passive protagonist (in fact, many movies where the protagonist is legally or obligated to do something, such as superhero movies or courtroom dramas, often feature passive protagonists who respond to the machinations of the nefarious antagonist). However, the writing has to be nearly perfect to the keep the audience interested because otherwise, many passive protagonists end up looking absolutely stupid in terms of the things they do (or don’t do) in necessity of the narrative actually happening.
Passive protagonists need an especially well-written antagonist, since they’re usually the one(s) driving the narrative along. To weak an antagonist, and you end up having the audience ask, “Why should we care if the protagonist isn’t really at risk, or showing much care and concern themselves?”
What shameful moment in American history was Oppenheimer referring to? Saving hundreds of thousands of lives by ending the war more quickly?
I’m sorry for you that more POWs and Chinese rape victims weren’t given more time to suffer.
The whole committing two of the far biggest war crimes in human history and then making up lame defenses excusing it thing.
Ending WWII = “Lame excuse”
“Winning a war” is a terrible excuse for committing (the most massive ever, to boot) war crimes, yes. But that’s a zionist for ya.
“We ‘ended WWII’ in the most human way!” is one of the most depraved talking points neolibs have about the whole thing. Just be honest that you don’t care about things like war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide when the US does it, and don’t try to hide behind “it was a moral thing, actually!”
What would have been the more moral choice? A land invasion? Just ignoring them?
“Most massive ever”
Have you heard about a little ditty called the Holocaust?
Activate deflector shields, pattern: But the Holocaust
It’s ironic you mention deflection after dodging my question about what a better alternative would have been.
Surrendering and letting the Japanese rape their way across China
Pretty telling they can’t answer. I’m certainly open to the idea there was a better alternative, but so far all I hear is crickets.
That’s the problem when you post entirely on “anything the U.S. does is bad” reflex. No room for any silly things like alternatives.There are generations of Americans AND Japanese that lived because those bombs were dropped.
“There are generations of Americans AND Japanese that lived because those bombs were dropped.” What insane, morally depraved logic.
How is it factually incorrect? Again, what course of action would have led to fewer lives lost?
Otherwise known as logic you don’t refute
“Logic,” otherwise made-up alternate historical fiction justifying the worst war atrocities ever committed.
Using nukes on civilians good because THE ASIATIC HORDES
I have no idea who you are, but lol you’re asking what a better alternative is to committing massive war crimes on civilian population centers? How about this: not committing massive war crimes on civilian population centers. Corollary: Not being upset someone calls it shameful.
I’m asking you because you clearly don’t want to deal with the fact that it was the best option. Life doesn’t always give you a good option to choose. they were not going to stop attacking us and many other countries in the world. Should we have just allowed that? How else would you have dealt with being attacked and wanting to stop atrocities?
If all you can say is “don’t do the thing I don’t like” it just shows you know there was no better answer.
Deranged, ahistorical response, thanks.
What about it is ahistorical?
How am I deranged for wanting the least amount of suffering possible?
The real problem here is you can’t cope with the reality or the situation.
The reality of the situation is you think the worst war atrocities in human history are justifiable. The problem is you can’t cope with the reality that nuking civilians twice were monstrous acts that were political in intent, not strategic.
I don’t think it was the worst atrocity but yes, I do think it is justified by being the option that had the least amount of harm. Again, I’m open to the idea that a different course of action would have led to less harm, but you are going to have to have something to say there and you keep coming up empty.
“ The problem is you can’t cope with the reality that nuking civilians twice were monstrous acts that were political in intent, not strategic.”
I don’t know what you think the difference is between political and strategic but I have no problem accepting things that can be established with facts. You don’t seem capable of doing that though. You just have thoughtless platitudes.
there’s a bitter irony after The Curse that Emma Stone wound up robbing an Indigenous woman of her big award opportunity.
“Robbing” is a strong and inappropriate word. It would have been awesome to see Gladstone win because I really loved her performance, but Stone’s was also really incredible, and a much bigger part of her film. The award was up for grabs especially between the two of them, and not for Gladstone to lose.
Honestly, it was such a close race between the two, that I was actually willing to wager on a vote split resulting in a third person winning in an upset. I thought Sandra Huller had a damn good chance. So I agree, Gladstone was not robbed. it was a phenomenal performance, and the whole season, it was clear the race would be tight.
Apple should have stuck to their original plan and campaigned for Supporting Actress, which Gladstone would have won handily. Universal tried the same thing last year with Michelle Williams’ from ‘Fabelmans’. She was predicted to win Supporting Actress, but the studio decided to submit her for Lead. She got nominated, but never had a chance of winning.
Stop telling people how to feel or what to say. There’s nothing “inappropriate” about taking a position.
What I should have written is that the word choice is inappropriate. And I’m not telling anyone how to feel.
There is nothing inappropriate here. Get a lawyer for shit’s sake.
BreadnMaters will happily tell you how to behave, though. She can eat shit.
There is if your position is saying something insultingly idiotic, like “robbing an Indigenous woman of her big award opportunity”
“Inappropriate” here is pretty clearly referring to the word not being an accurate representation of the situation, not “taking a position.”
I saw both Poor Things and KOFM. Emma Stone is much more front and center in her movie and her performance is very showy. Lily Gladstone’s performance is much quieter and for me impactful. However, it isn’t hard to see why Stone took home the Oscar. Nobody got robbed of anything.
I was thinking about this last night, and come to a realization: Best Actress winners, by and large, have been for very exhuberant, “showy” roles, especially in the last 20 years. For example:
2022: Michelle Yeoh – Showy
2021: Jessica Chastain – Showy
2020: Frances McDormand – An understated exception
2019: Renee Zellweger – Showy
2018: Olivia Colman – Showy
2017: Frances McDormand – An understated exception
2016: Emma Stone – Showy
2015: Brie Larson -Showy
2014: Julianne Moore – 50/50
2013: Cate Blanchett – Showy
2012: Jennifer Lawrence – Showy
2011: Meryl Streep – Showy
2010: Natalie Portman – Showy
2009: Sandra Bullock – Showy
2008: Kate Winslet – Understated
2007: Marion Cotillard – Showy
2006: Helen Mirren – Showy
2005: Reese Witherspoon – Showy
2004: Hilary Swank – 50/50
2003: Charlize Theron – Showy
2002: Nicole Kidman – Understated
2001: Halle Berry – Showy
Emma Stone was great, and when I finally saw Poor Things (about 2 weeks before the Oscars) I understood why she was nominated and why she’d likely win. She straddled the line between “acting” and scenery-chewing acting, and for a character that could easily veer into caricature, that takes an immense talent.
Lily wasn’t robbed. This was just a really competitive year. I don’t think she would’ve won last year, but in 2021 and especially 2020, I think she’s a winner (I don’t think Frances should’ve won for Nomadland, but I think if it was between two very understated performances, Lily would’ve got it as KOTFM was a much better movie overall).
Of those:
2000: Julia Roberts – Sassy, real person
2001 – Got naked and looked like she was enjoying sex with Billy Bob
2002 -Real person
2003 – Got fat, got naked, mental health
2004 – Got buff, played disabled
2005 – Real person
2006 – Real person
2007 – Real person
2008 – Got naked. Nazi
2009 – Sassy, real person
2010 – Mental health
2011 – Real person
2012 – Mental health
2013 – Mental health
2014 – Metal health
2015 – Sex abuse victim
2016 – Whoa… upset. Stone beat out Real Person (Portman’s Jackie O)
2017 – Whoa… two in a row. McDormand was sassy, but beat out Streep’s Real Person AND Margot Robbie’s Real Person.
2018 – Real person
2019 – Real person
2020 – Complete stunner. Beat out TWO real people.
2021 – Ah, back on track. Real person.
2022 – Very nice win. Overdue, diverse, fun movie.
2023 – Naked AND Mental Health!
Haha, I was also going to go the route of denoting the exact characters, but you did a bang up job.
Granted, I don’t think that 2016 was an upset for Stone over Portman, and I do think that Frances deserved beating Streep and Robbie in 2017 (Three Billboards was fantastic).
I will continue to say that Nomadland was not a particularly good film and that Frances shouldn’t have won, let alone beat any of the other women nominated. But that was a strange year overall (Anthony Hopkins was great in The Father, but almost everyone expected Chadwick to get the posthumous Oscar for Ma Rainey, Glenn Close once again lost, and Chloe Zhao came out of nowhere and scooped Best Picture and Best Director for Nomadland).
I was stunned she beat Viola Davis, but the Oscars went through a stretch (maybe a reaction to superhero movies and other franchises) where it seemed to go out of the way reward the movies seen by the absolute fewest people.Oppenbie seems to have changed that a bit.
I was stunned she beat Viola Davis, but the Oscars went through a stretch (maybe a reaction to superhero movies and other franchises) where it seemed to go out of the way reward the movies seen by the absolute fewest people.I still haven’t met a person in real-life who saw CODA, and that’s not to cast any aspersions on the quality of the film or the performers, but dear God it had the double-whammy of coming out during both Covid and on Apple TV+ (not to mention some of the movies it managed to beat).
lolz… yeah…
Oh fuck all the way off twice. Emma Stone did nothing wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/03/cameron-crowe-apologises-for-casting-emma-stone-as-part-asian-in-alohaWell, NOTHING wrong is a bit of a stretch lol
Yes, 10 years ago, she took a job and she’s apologized repeatedly.She didn’t do shit to Lily Gladstone. Other than be better.
Lol I’m just kidding I genuinely don’t care.When I think of her in Aloha, which is never, all I think of is this sketch from the Chappelle Show (before he because what he hated)
Before he because what he hated, indeed.
Lol it was a joke. I genuinely don’t care.
You’re right. The commenter clearly was saying that Stone has never done wrong in her entire life, and is the Messiah.
There are worse candidates for Messiah out there.
She’s not the Messiah, she’s a very naughty girl
I took it as a joke because of Emma Stone’s character from “The Curse”. Just like how Kate Winslet called her shot about how she would finally win an Oscar if she did a Holocaust film on the comedy show Extras. FYI she won for playing an illiterate Nazi guard who sleeps with a teenage boy in The Reader.
who said Stone did anything wrong. i just think there’s a certain (horribly dark) humour about the exact thing she satirized in The Curse actually coming true in real life. she should have taken the stage eating a turkey sandwich.
who said Stone did anything wrong. i just think there’s a certain (horribly dark) humour about the exact thing she satirized in The Curse actually coming true in real life. she should have taken the stage eating a turkey sandwich. Yep. That was my takeaway.Awards season is over. People can stow their fucking opera goggles and cummerbunds for another year, FFS.
Robbing isn’t the right word, but yes, that is pretty funny.
Heartbreaking is the word I would use. Gladstone won almost every award except the Big One. I fear she will be back, but never get this close again. She’s 37 by the way. A lot older than I thought. That is going to be a factor as she mounts another attempt. Hollywood is brutal.
Every time I see people with this same bullshit take, I think that you either didn’t see Poor Things or you don’t understand how basic math works. Emma Stone and Lily Gladstone were neck-and-neck in prognosticators’ books going into last night. Pretty much everyone was praising both of their performances. It was toss up, and there can only be one winner. Nobody robbed anybody.
Aw, c’mon, that was funny!
Sure, if your definition of progress is accolades.
Round two of eating the turkey
Gladstone is great in KOTFM but Stone is even better in Poor Things. *shrugs*
Or you could just think that Stone gave amazing, difficult performance in both a TV show and a movie this year, and so it’s nice she won an award.
I was genuinely surprised that Gladstone didn’t win, but I saw both movies and if I’m honest with myself, it’s almost not even fair for them to compete in the same category. Emma Stone is in almost every single scene, and did such a phenomenal job. She absolutely earned her win, and it’s only because of “optics” that there’s any doubt. She was incredible. So was Lily Gladstone, but she’s not onscreen as much (she’s not in most of the most of the movie, and I initially assumed she would be nominated for Best Supporting Actress), and frankly, she gave a very different kind of performance. It was the kind of understated performance that is frequently praised and rarely awarded. It is what it is.
Agreed, if they had put her in Supporting from the start it would have been a slam dunk.
Between the two films, both are great performances. But Stone dominates her film utterly WITH that great performance. It is not that much of a surprise that she got the most votes.
Especially for playing a sexy baby (a very funny sexy baby but still maybe not the most nuanced performance compared to some of the other people that could have one)
If Stone’s performance weren’t one for the ages I’d agree, but it really, really is one of the best performance’s of the year. Gladstone’s performance was, too, and honestly I don’t think there’s a good argument for either of them not winning, unless it was to the other.
Lily won the Golden Globe for Drama, and the SAG Best Actress, which some actors value more than the Oscar, as well as a large number of critics circle awards. She hardly finished the year empty-handed!
Emma Stone played someone with special needs, it was prime Oscar bait. Always has been.
Maybe you should watch Poor Things first.
This is a hell of a joke, and I’m not surprised that people would rather fight you than get that joke.
lol thank you.
Did the AV Club forget that it put not just Oppenheimer, but also Poor Things, ahead of Killers of the Flower Moon in its list of the best picture of 2023? So why all the sudden wailing about the fact that the Academy . . . agreed with you? How is a movie “snubbed” when you think the actual winner was better?https://www.avclub.com/best-films-of-2023-1851108465/slides/2I liked KOTFM. But it’s long. It seems funny to argue that it’s “only twenty-six minutes longer” than Oppenheimer, since that effectively means it was a half-hour longer than another long movie. It’s 90 minutes longer than a normal movie. That’s long.I’m also not convinced that the movie “earned its runtime by tackling a topic as weighty as genocide.” Movies don’t inherently justify a certain length because their subject is important. KOTFM is, in some way, “about” genocide against Native Americans. More directly, it’s about a discrete event, taking place between 1919 and 1926.
You know that not all individuals in a given workplace agree 100% on things, right?
…and it continues a belief Scorcese has spent half his career addressing, even in films like this and Age of Innocence: that mafia’s are everywhere.
Only the most shallow reading of the film would call it “directly” about just this one event. Over and over, the characters and the context interrogate the roots of racism, and the insidious ways it burrows into the hearts of ostensibly good people.
Movies depict specific things, which often comment on broader things. But when you’re talking about how long a movie needs to be, it makes sense to focus on the actual stuff the movie has to show on screen. Because if you try to analyze how long a movie takes to depict a broad, abstract themes, that doesn’t get you anywhere. Think of it this way, why is the movie Greyhound about 90 minutes long, while Band of Brothers is 10 hours long? By your logic, both things justify the same length — at a high level of abstraction, they’re both about the heroism and stress put on Americans fighting World War II. But that’s makes no sense. Greyhound depicts a single primary character during events taking only a few days. Band of Brothers shows a group of soldiers as they go through numerous events over the course of several years.
With so many movies each year, and only one winner per category, there’s always going to be some claim that a person or a movie was “snubbed.” That will always be a hard case to make.What do you have to say about the rest of the article? Why refer to one nominee as being a non-nominee’s coworker? The “snub” was about more than one woman failing to win her award. The “snub” is also the crassness, the attitude, the disrespect overall.
My takeKOTFM was perhaps mis-packaged, mis-directed, mis-scripted and spent too much time on the wrong character. 1. Mis-packaged: 3 hours and 31 minutes (end-to-end). It might have been a better mini-series. There could have been more than one episode that just has Osage characters pooling their brief riches together to lobby DC. Because that’s essentially what happened. This was going to be a totally forgotten story of colonialization, greed, insurance fraud and murder. But the money got them attention and helped give birth to the FBI and the concept of treating crimes on tribal land as Federal crimes. Also, this move reminded me of Syriana (2005). There’s a lot of story that could have been broken in into a miniseries. I also noticed that characters appeared but were never introduced. Was the old woman seen by King (De Niro) his wife? Was there a young girl who was never introduced? Was the old couple scrutinizing the mixed-race children Ernest’s parents? 2. Mis-directed: Scorsese came in and had the most fun with the half of the story involving the schemes. The insurance frauds, the murder plots, the mob-like behavior of manipulating families and money without ever having firm verbal orders or a paper trail (well, aside from the contract to have the inheritance skip Ernest and go directly to King). It was the tried-and-true Scorsese mob template installed in a much sadder Oklahoma story. If only Scorsese brought the same energy to the other side of the story, the story of the non-white people desperately trying to get justice. I just found that uneven. The movie flowed better when Scorsese was handing the white people scenes. 3. Mis-scripted. I’ll just say having the female lead spend 90 minutes being sick and bedridden did Lilly Gladstone no favors. Hollywood likes actors who portray disabilities, not be sick in bed. Surely the script could have been re-worked to portray Mollie Burkhart as a more active lobbyist in DC. That could have been an entire episode of a miniseries. 4. The wrong character took up too much screen time. We spend too much time with Ernest Burkhart. The movie sets us up for a character arc that never fully materializes. Ernest is not a smart man. To paraphrase one critic, he is a dumb, more passive Henry Hill. He is used as a cog of a genocide, and rather than becoming fully aware of it and helping Lilly fight it, he betrays everyone. He spends most of the movie scowling and frowning and generally being dumb. We don’t get any payoff in seeing him turn to the forces of good and justice. DiCaprio had his choice of two characters, Ernest and the lead FBI agent. He chose the less interesting character. Maybe he thought his crying scene in the jail cell would get him another Academy nomination. But by that point in the film, how many people were still watching?Seriously, how many people got through to the end of this unbalanced epic?
i havent actually see KOTFM yet, i just thought this would be a funny reply
Love it! My wife & I still quote their Super Bowl episode and it’s been over 30 years
Scorsese’s epic was undoubtedly one of the best films of the year. You could stop there. It was indeed one of the best films of last year. It had several nominations to back that up. But there can be only one winner in each category, and KOTFM was up against arguably better films in each category, hence it going home empty hand. Last year was a banner year for movies.
most of the roughly 10,000 voting members of the Academy aren’t the biggest fans of Martin Scorsese. I’m a big Scorsese fan, in general, but his work this century pales to his work last century. He keeps miscasting DiCaprio—including in KOTFM—and that alone often undercuts quality, but it doesn’t end there. With KOTFM he made more than one poor choice with the source material. Having read the book—twice—Scorsese’s adaptation was fine, but not stellar. Even judging it against Scorsese’s other films, it’s middle of the road stuff. And since you mention The Irishman as another example of how Academy voters might hate him, I wouldn’t put it even in the top 50% of his work.
The second potential explanation is that a lot of people put KOTFM and Oppenheimer in the same mental bucket… it would explain why films like Poor Things and Anatomy Of A Fall that were both so visually and tonally different seemed to generate more of their own buzz.Or, you know, all three of those other films were just great films—arguably better films themselves. It’s not rocket science.
The third and most challenging potential explanation is that KOTFM forced audiences to reckon with a far stickier legacy than some of its peers.
There are all sorts of Oscar winners that have depicted equally horrific aspects of American history—including the genocide of American Indians, and discounting Oppenheimer because it “didn’t the actually show [shameful American history] on screen” is reaching at best—and a bizarre take on what Oppenheimer does in fact depict, in my book.
There’s not necessarily any larger lesson here. KOTFM just wasn’t as good a film as Oppenheimer, Poor Things, Anatomy of a Fall, The Zone of Interest, etc. There’s no shame in that. Those are all fucking fantastic films.
With KOTFM he made more than one poor choice with the source material. Having read the book—twice—Scorsese’s adaptation was fine, but not stellar.I’m aware of the book, and familiar with the broad strokes, but haven’t read it myself (and even then, I’m not convinced Leo was the best casting). What are some other poor choices he made?
I really like KotFM, but Leo is 50 playing a 25 year old and DeNiro is 80 playing a 43 year old. That changes everything about those character’s dynamic! Leo can play young with his babyface and middle school haircut, but not that young.
I disagree with much of what you’re saying in that I thought it was a far better film than the other nominees (Oppenheimer, which had laughably bad dialogue in many points, or Poor Things, which to me was very good but not great).However, I would be remiss to point out that many folks were uncomfortable that the film focused too much on the perpetrators rather than the victims. I don’t think I agree with that charge — the film itself is specifically about the banality of evil and how systematic murder is committed with a smile, as Henry Hill would say. Still, this aspect of the film did bother a great many critics and, I’m sure, a portion of Academy voters, too.
Regarding your second paragraph, you certainly don’t see anyone leveling that charge against The Zone of Interest (My personal pick for Best Pic of the year), and that’s probably because nobody who thinks that way probably bothered to watch The Zone of Interest.
I thought DiCaprio was mind-bogglingly wrong for this movie, and I tend to really like his work. Really, really hurt the movie for me.
Nailed it. I thought KOTFM was slightly better than the Irishman at best, honestly. Leo being constantly miscast is so on point. Scorcese movies don’t have great character arcs lately. I think looking at individual scenes he is still one of the best directors but ever since Wolf of Wall Street his movies just feel like a long vignette of plot points.
DiCaprio is just not the “thespian” that many have wanted him to be/ insisted that he is. The Departed was the last time he gave an excellent performance and The Revenant was not worthy of his earning an Oscar. His “bravery” at eating whale blubber and being super-cold was so overplayed, especially when you had Tom Hardy out-acting him in every single scene (same thing that happened in Inception.)There are just too many more interesting actors with a much wider range these days. If a writer/ director wanted a truly nuanced and dynamic actor, someone like Adam Driver would be so much more entertaining and capable. His Leo stans aside, The Industry has known this for a while now.Re: Scorsese, The Irishman (a totally unnecessary film) has relatively few fans, despite obligatory nominations. It’s just a mild backlash. He’ll be fine.
He keeps miscasting DiCaprio
As much as I like both those guys, it’s crazy this doesn’t get called out more.
Correct. It is nuclear science
While I think most people would agree that the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, it’s not to the country’s shame that the U.S. got there first. There are plenty of opinions about how many lives were saved (American and Japanese) and how much destruction avoided. I can certainly see how the Manhattan Project participants felt personally about their involvement. But the Soviets having it first would have been worse.
“…aren’t the biggest fans of Martin Scorsese. The director has been nominated 16 times…”Um…
Yeah, I think the situation is actually that the Academy likes Scorsese a lot, but that his movies (while often very good) have not necessarily been the best movie in a lot of years. Like, Goodfellas probably should have beaten Dances With Wolves in 1990. But most of the time, there’s been a strong case that the Scorsese movie deserved to lose, even if his movie is quite good. I’m not mourning that The Aviator didn’t win, for example, and I like it.
I didn’t like Goodfellas (((ducks))). But The Aviator was a great movie and I could’ve gotten behind that for a win.
You’re definitely entitled to your opinion. I think Goodfellas is the one where there might be a broader consensus that the Academy fucked up though. That doesn’t make you wrong, of course.
I’m not a fan of Scorsese’s films generally, and I’ve seen a few. (Checks on imdb – I’ve seen ten.) They’re the sort of films IMO that you experience rather than enjoy, and they’re all rather…blokey…for want of a better term. I reckon Goodfellas is the best (again IMO) of a bunch of films that I will never watch again.
Just out of curiosity, does it bore you, or do you object to something about it? Like, is it it just uninteresting, or does it depict something you can’t support? (Or a possible third reason?)
This year was the THIRD time a Scorsese-directed film went 0-10 at the Oscars, after Gangs of New York and The Irishman. The only films that have done worse vis-a-vis nominations to wins in Oscar history are The Turning Point and The Color Purple, which both went 0-11 (American Hustle also went 0-10). If that’s not evidence of a trend, I don’t know what is.Also I would love to hear your argument for why Raging Bull, AKA the best American film of the 80s, deserved to lose against Ordinary People.
I’m still retroactively smarting for the fact that Casino only got one Oscar nomination (Sharon Stone for Best Actress). I just looked up the nominations for Best Picture that Oscar season, and you had Braveheart, Apollo 13, Babe, Il Postino, and Sense and Sensibility.
The last 3 listed are out for me, Apollo 13 was really good, and Braveheart was a true epic. So, that leaves 3 open spots. Considering that The Usual Suspects didn’t get a Best Picture nomination either, 2 of the greatest crime movies of the 1990s were completely ignored in favor of 3 movies which, by and large, were Oscar-baity schlock? Not to mention Toy Story, which didn’t get a nomination and was one of the big factors leading to a Best Animated Feature category being created 6 years later.
If it helps, Babe’s nomination did cause quite the stir at the time.
Eh, you don’t need as much backing to get nominating as you need to win. It’s an old topic.
“It’s an honor just to be nominated” (sotto voce string of curse words)
I think there’s a common thread between Paramount getting cold feet when the story changed to focus on Molly and Ernest and the Osage point of view, and AMPAS voters choosing Oppenheimer and other films over Flower Moon in various categories. And part of it is race. You have a lot of Academy members who are comfortable white people who don’t like to be made uncomfortable or in any way culpable or complicit.But this isn’t a Crash situation. It’s not like you can’t make a case for the films and performances that bested it.
If that were true, then how come the white people awarded three Oscars to the uncomfortable slavery movie, 12 Years a Slave?
I think the difference is 12 Years A Slave and Green Book and Crash didn’t implicate the audience whereas Flower Moon does. Furthermore, 12 Years A Slave, etc., these are white savior movies, they’re movies about reconciliation whereas Flower Moon isn’t that. There was no happy ending.
Did you actually see Flower Moon? It does end on a happy note and there is a “white savior” in that one too.
I’d like to have what it is you smoke in order to make such a ridiculous and strange reach of an argument. Especially since it’s obvious you’ve never actually seen any of these films.
Did you actually see Flower Moon? It does end on a happy note and there is a “white savior” in that one too.What “happy note”? Molly died broke. Almost all of the Osage went broke when other oil was found in non-Native American lands. Ernest and Hale eventually got paroled, and the movie actually diminished the amount of Osage who were concurrently killed, although who weren’t directly related to Molly’s extended family. And if by “white savior” you mean the nascent FBI, the trope doesn’t really apply when it’s someone merely doing their job. They have to go above and beyond, specifically due to their inherent goodness due to them being white.
Crash was a decidedly middling film, 12 Years a Slave was great, as was KOTFM. It wasn’t my pick for best movie of the year (that goes to Oppenheimer, one of the few films released in the last 10 or so years that demands a cinema viewing in its full glory), nor was it my favorite movie of the year (that goes to American Fiction), but I don’t think you can discount the role that certain narrative tropes (or lackthereof) play in regards to a voting body that is relatively homogenous in terms of age and race/ethnicity.
Molly didn’t die broke. She successfully sued to end her guardianship and gained control of her family’s wealth. Ernest and Hale still got busted and went to jail, and despite them being paroled, they both died broke failures and their plans failed. And yes, the FBI agent is the white savior. If it weren’t for him, Ernest and Hale would’ve gotten away with it. In general, Molly not only survived, but managed to keep her money, while the evil white guys went to jail and lost everything. How is that not a happy ending?
Did you actually pay attention to the epilogue or actually read up on what actually happened in reality? No? Just wanna jump onto the internet and argue and fight for arguings sake because Lily didn’t win? Obviously yes.
No? Just wanna jump onto the internet and argue and fight for arguings sake because Lily didn’t win? Obviously yes.You’re the one whose tone seems needlessly pointed, but go off.
Cheers.
So that’s a yes, you just wanna jump onto the internet and argue and fight for arguings sake because Lily didn’t win and didn’t actually watch or pay attention to the movie.
Cheers indeed for acknowledging exactly what I thought: just another AVClub virtue signaling troll.
This 100%.
Just saw your name and came to say, “Ay Baltimore!!!”
First off, I loved the movie, full stop. Saw it in the theater and I did not think there was a single wasted minute. Having said that, while I understand Scorsese’s decision to change the focus to the Osage victims, it entirely undermined what was really effective about the book—it’s a mystery, a whodunit, and it only gradually comes out that Mollie’s husband and his uncle (and others) were responsible for the murders of her sister, her mother, almost her, and many others besides. While this puts the focus more on the investigation (i.e., the white Texas Ranger Tom White (Jesse Plemons) and his team), it also builds suspense, and makes for a truly shocking ending when the full extent of the conspiracy (which went well beyond the immediate story) is explained, and the full disconnect between the perpetrators’ public personas and their private evil deeds is exposed. It likely would have been difficult to film the book as written, but putting it out there pretty quickly that Ernest and his uncle are cold-blooded murderers took away a lot of the drama while enabling the story to be told as it in fact happened. Plus, Ernest is the least compelling character in the story; he’s just a dumb guy whose domineering uncle and many flaws caused him to betray the woman he loves. I wonder how much of Scorsese’s approach was driven by Leo’s decision to play Burkhart rather than Tom White, and the resulting need to make that character more prominent?
1) Oppenheimer was way more prominent in people’s minds, and many more people saw it in a theater than Killers.2) It was overall a pretty strong group of films this year, so KotFM’s chances at other awards were edged out by as good or better choices. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthy. I wasn’t as big a fan of Poor Things as many people here, but I still can see why Emma Stone won, even though I personally preferred Gladstone.
“Why did Killers Of The Flower Moon leave the Oscars empty-handed?”Because one of the ways to make a really good movie is to be the 2nd or 3rd b or 4th best at everything.
Oppenheimer took on a similarly shameful moment in American history but didn’t actually show it on screen. And what moment would that be?The decision to find an alternative to an invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have killed millions?!?!?!
This. AV bleeding heart writers seems forgetting history read. Japan never innocent in WW2, they were even worse than Nazi German in a lot of ways. Nuke those two cities is akin to choose the lesser of two evils. Either land invasion that resulted in worse situation, millions of Japanese + thousands of US forces gonna die in prolonged and exhausting urban battles, given the attitude of Japan Imperial Army of that time, or that.
Wow, more people failing to come to grips with the evil of using nuclear weapons because of some hypothetical they’ve made up. Glad we all still think America can do no wrong! And to the point about “reading history”, most historians have reappraised the use of the bomb and do not agree that it’s use was justified. In case you’re interested in facts.
Could you share a couple sources re: modern historians disagreeing with the rationale for dropping it? I see this claim a lot but rarely with an author or book included, and I’ve wondered whether the judgement is rendered based on knowledge via primary sources of the Russian and Japanese internal positions (which Allied decision makers wouldn’t have had access to) or strictly based on our best estimates of the Allies’ knowledge at the time.
I’ve also never understood why people attach a special significance to these bombs just because they were nuclear. I mean, I do, but…I don’t see how that’s “evil” unless the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo are also evil. Maybe they all are! Either way, I’m grateful that when I don’t get up in the morning I don’t have to choose whether to kill this group or that group, or hope that I don’t have to order this platoon into that death trap.
Which part of the hypothetical here is made up? And again, because I’d love to learn more, a source would be great.
Ah yes…”most historians”. Great use of citations there, homeboy.
some hypothetical they’ve made up.
Not a hypothetical. The alternative to the nukes was invading Japan, which would’ve been much worse.
Did you learn English through AI?
Pretty ignorant comment. Japan was already on the brink of collapse when we used the bomb. Historians have changed their view on the necessity of the a-bomb.
Arguably, they could also be talking about the post-war treatment of Oppenheimer and the whole of fascism and WW2 in general.
I’d like to introduce Emma to survivors of the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking. Perhaps we could dig up some Japanese WWll war atrocity films of Japanese soldiers pointing a gun at the head of a father, and demanding that he rape his daughter for their amusement. Japan was not a westernized, consumer goods, industrial nation back then. They were a Shinto warrior people who considered the other to be chattels, or worse. You may recall, that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and they would not surrender.
I completely agree with, “The bombings were necessary to shorten the war and save lives,” but I can’t get on board with, “The Japanese were utterly alien savages from a culture we can’t possibly understand who completely deserved whatever was done to them.”
War crimes of soldiers and their leaders should never lead to the punishment of unrelated civilians. Anyone who thinks any group of people deserve collective punishment are sick, hypocritical, and sadistic. That is the logic behind the 9/11 attacks.
Sure sounds a whole like what you folks say about why the Injuns and the Aff-ree-kans needed to be brought to heel. Weird how that works. That sudden aside about a rape happening somewhere somehow in someway is sounding especially timely, aside from the part where you in fact get weird about it, of course. Keep your kinks to yourself in the future, thanks.But please tell us more about the Bataan Death March like you give a hair of a dog’s gonad.
My dad fought in WW2 in the RAF in Burma. He saw terrible things, which he rarely spoke about, only occasionally referencing his experiences in comparison to films on the television or political goings-on. I remember that the only person I ever heard him say that he hated was Emperor Hirohito, who was never punished for all the evils he oversaw.
Unit 731 – the laboratory that Imperial Japan set up for human experiments terrifies me to my core. And it is pretty much a blip in history.
The atomic bombings in Japan were not done to avoid a mainland invasion of Japan and had nothing to do with Japan’s surrender. That’s a discredited myth that was invented well after the fact.
We had already firebombed most of their cities to dust – including Tokyo, and Japan had already reached out to discuss surrender terms before the bombings. The real motivation for their surrender was mostly likely the declaration of war from the Soviet Union, and their smart desire to surrender to the USA rather than the Soviets.
Plus – the true shameful moment the book and movie dwell on is probably less the bombings and more the reckless launch of an uncontrolled arms race that could have easily led to the destruction of every city on earth. The Americans first stupidly thought the Soviets would never be able to develop an atomic bomb, and then lost every opportunity to try to reign in the mass construction of thermonuclear weapons. Read “American Prometheus” as a starting point.
The AVClub writers should read up on the proposed Operation Coronet and Operation Olympic (Invasion of Japan) to understand what an absolute shit show of death and destruction a full invasion of Japan would have been.
Does “KOTFM was beaten by Oppenheimer” really count as a “theory?” What’s your theory for why the 49ers lost the Superbowl, and does it involve the Chiefs?
My theory? The chiefs scored more points than the 49ers. But I know that’s WILD speculation, to be fair.
People went up on stage, opened envelopes, and said Oppenheimer’s name a bunch, after which people who worked on Oppenheimer ascended the stage, got gold trophies, and said some stuff. That never happened with Killers of the Flower Moon.When you think about it, the evidence in support of this theory is pretty strong.
My two cents: I think Scorsese was the wrong person to direct this film, and his role in its making raised expectations and provoked a far greater letdown.Roger Ebert once discussed this particular phenomenon, in a review for a film whose title escape me, but I will try my best to paraphrase accurately. He was discussing the different standards he held for different filmmakers. When your average workaday filmmaker makes a thriller or romantic comedy, and it is effective at what it does, Ebert would give it a good review. But when Ebert was presented with, say, a new Bergman film, he expected to see a masterpiece, and if the movie falls short, his review would tend to be harsher. Because he holds Bergman to a much higher standard.I think one could still argue that Scorsese is the preeminent American artisan filmmaker. His body of work has cemented his legacy. Each new film he makes is a cause for pause and celebration, because the work of an outstanding artist is about to be unveiled. Scorsese’s films have largely been very nimble, fast paced, filling the runtime and not overstaying its welcome. His films had an unmistakeable aura.. You could tell you were seeing a Scorsese film.Lately, in his lion in winter years, his films have grown slowly more stately and nostalgic, and to increasingly diminshed returns. My personal reaction to seeing “KOTFM” was that it was a perfectly fine film, but one that felt well within the hands of many directors of capable skill. And that’s a problem when the director making it is Scorsese. It felt beneath his abilities. I wanted something more.
I saw a film that didn’t justify its runtime. I saw a film that was problematic in how it forgrounded the experience of whites, and takes its one standout performance – Gladstones – and sidelines her. I think people went in expecting to see The Great American Filmmaker offer his unique take on a particularly American crime, and what they got was a fairly bogstandard film that could’ve been a hulu miniseries. And that letdown was far greater, than if it was say a film by a young up and comer, where expectations are lower, and the more benefits of the doubt given. And sadly that letdown dragged Gladstone with it. It also didn’t help that her performance really does tread that line between being a lead and supporting performance. I think it might have been better suited in the supporting category, but they rolled the dice on a lead. Personally I think Sandra Huller gave the best performance for Anatomy of a Fall, and between that and Zone of Interest, had the best 2023 of any of the actors nominated. But Emma Stone’s work was also great, and I loved that they recognized a comedic performance, which is a rarity, and one that I hope might signal a future trend toward honor more work that isn’t exclusively dramatic. Such are the vagaries of trying to judge work that is inherently beyond judging. Gladstone’s time will come, and I hope it will be for a film more deserving of her work.
That’s one of the things I thought of about why I thought the movie was too slow. Scorsese’s movies zip by on it’s own momentum. This movie did not zip or fly or move. It was just long.
I am so confused about these complaints about it moving too slow. Maybe I just watch different types of movies than most of the posters here, but it felt positively breezy to me. The pacing is so quick for the scope of the story, to the point that it actually should’ve been even longer since it felt like lots of things were glossed over. If I didn’t know the runtime going in, I would’ve guessed it was 2 1/2 hours at most.
That was a very well-written and thoughtful statement of opinion. I disagree with your assessment of the film (which I believe is a masterpiece) but I applaud the way you expressed it.
This is really well said. As much as I liked KOTFM, I agree about the expectations we hold for certain directors, and to that point, it’s why I felt Nolan actually surpassed what I expected of him with Oppenheimer. It’s notably improved when it comes to character study- Keep in mind we’re coming off Tenet and (hot take) Dunkirk, two films where I think style over substance got the better of him.
Oppenheimer was long AND boooooring. Killers was just long.
Why did Scorsese’s Gangs of New York and The Irishman also lose all 10 of their nominations? It was just the competition. Unlucky.
Both movies are not even his best outing. Less deserving than his other movies.
Clearly not the point I’m making, and considering those films weren’t going up against other films in Scorsese’s filmography, it’s not even relevant if they’re “less deserving” or not.
There’s no bigger injustice in his career than Goodfellas not getting the best picture, it’s one of the best American movies ever made.
Counterpoint: IF you cared so much about the plights of our nation’s indigenous people you wouldn’t need a bloated Hollywood movie to remind you to fight.
This is 100% performative outrage because you don’t ACTUALLY care about their plight, you just want to appear as though you care because if you did care this wouldn’t be your first time speaking on this subject.
Where were you when Kathy Hochul was extorting upstate NY tribes for tens of millions in tribal funds, shutting them out of their banks entirely so she could pay for government projects that the private funding fell through on?
Where were you during the pipeline protests? Little Rock?
If you don’t give a fk about the LIVING Native Americans, I damn sure don’t want to hear you running your fking mouth about some random fking dead ones.
Sir, this is an entertainment blog, not Emma Keates’ diary.
Not sure how that relates to what I said in any way. Would it be better if I was stalking her and responding to her diary?
She wrote a story, I engaged with the story and the the very concept of it being considered a story in the first place because of it being the lowest possible bar for caring about indigenous americans and their plight when its easier than ever to report on the true problems that they face.
And I’m say that this is an entertainment blog. Why would they report on the plight of indigenous Americans other than when it intersects with the entertainment industry? And you’re making a pretty huge assumption that the author has never cared about indigenous American issues, when this blog doesn’t represent the sum total of her work, or her interests.
I’m sorry, do you turn off your morality when you go to work? Do you just become an android incapable of independent functionality? I didn’t smash hundreds of right-wing propaganda books in my time at Amazon just to have someone tell me morality stays at the door.
Incase you didn’t notice, I was addressing the fking author, NOT you and neither of us can provide the answers to your supposition. YOU are the one making huge assumptions here considering the writer has not come to answer my assertions despite having had plenty of opportunity to do so.
IF I am incorrect, THEY can address that…. you are only capable of yammering at me with no ability of disproving my summation anymore than I can prove it. Waste your time responding so I can waste even more time insulting you for trying to force us to engaging in a pointless back and forth.
What huge assumptions am I making? I never accused you of not smashing hundreds of right-wing propaganda books.
you could remove every 2023 oscar nominated movie from existence and still have a super competitive awards show. it was just a massively good year for movies. kotfm blew me away, but so did oppenheimer, barbie, poor things, and a dozen others.
like yeah i think it would have done a lot better if it was up against CODA
I agree.
This was an incredibly strong year, and the trend for Best Picture for the last couple years have been films which are more visually arresting in a manner that Scorsese hasn’t really done in awhile (excluding CODA). KOTFM, while beautiful, visually looks like a Scorsese live-action movie, which we’ve seen in quality outputs dating back to his more modern films with Goodfellas.
If anything, Scorsese is a “victim” of hyper-competence. He’s so good all the time that it’s almost impossible to go above and beyond the expectations he’s made for himself. Nolan had a big swing and a miss with Tenet, but he rebounded from a movie with a thin plot but amazing visuals to a movie with a brilliant plot and visuals to match. Scorsese gave us another really good Scorsese movie with really good performances from a cast of performers who almost always give you really good performances. To use an analogy, was it a Super Bowl winning team and staff? No, but you’d certainly good a good playoff run out of it.
100%. he’s a genre unto himself and almost gets ‘taken for granted’. to have a movie like that in you at 81 is remarkable, but again, it was just too good a year. i bet he’s just happy to still be able to throw down a competitive project that has people talking like that, 50+ years into his career.
I have not seen the movie yet. My unbiased take is that based on the hype before the movie came out, the reviews of the performances other than Gladstone’s, and the award season buzz it sounds like the movie as a whole was disappointing.
Seriously? Nobody thought that movie was in the running for anything but Best Actress coming into the awards. The average review I read for the movie was: “Good, not great, not Scorsese’s best work”. If it doesn’t have Scorsese’s name on it, does it even get nominated?I admit I thought Gladstone would win, but I never thought it would have a chance in any other category.
Because it was uper boring? No, wait … that can’t be it. So was Oppie.
(The Academy did not immediately respond to The A.V. Club’s request for comment on this.)
Oscars only like bad Martin Scorsese movies. If it’s good it won’t win any awards.
I’m surprised that you didn’t mention the elephant in the room: streaming companies. Streaming companies owned by tech giants have been pouring money into award campaigns for years now, mostly successfully. I got the sense with this years Oscar’s that there was a backlash, and a concerted effort to reward traditional theatrical movies over streamers, and while yes, Killers of the Flower Moon very much received an exclusive theatrical window (and a generous one at that IMO), it was still produced by Apple TV+. I could be wrong but I think that was a factor this year.
I very much agree. I think there’s a chance that Oppenheimer might not have cleaned up as much if it had been streamer produced.
I highly doubt that’s the case, but if it’s true it’s probably for the best. The streamers don’t care about the film industry, it’s just something new for them to throw money at and conquer. They thought they could just give two acclaimed men in their 80s 200 million dollars each and rack up awards. They were wrong. Turns out the Academy is either of that stuff or just wasn’t impressed enough to give them anything other than pity nominations.As American Fiction’s Cord Jefferson (and newly-minted Oscar winner) said, “make twenty 10 million dollar films, not one 200 million dollar films. Give other people a chance.”
That’s a stupid theory. Napoleon, like most Ridley Scott films in the past decade, was just a messy film that didn’t deserve awards. Killers just blanked like most Scorsese films do. Killers in particular was a fairly weak film that lost steam once it went wide even though it was predicted to be a top contender at Cannes. It basically just got pity nominations because the Academy respects (but doesn’t actually love) his films. They voted for films they actually liked.Apple chose to spend 400M on Ridley Scott and Scorsese films because they thought acclaimed directors would easily win awards. They were wrong. Simple as that. No grand conspiracy nonsense needed.Cord Jefferson said “make twenty 10 million dollar films, not one 200 million dollar films. Give other people a chance.” Maybe the poor little “streaming companies owned by tech giants” would win an award for one of their films if they listened to the guy who just won an Oscar for a category Killers failed to garner a nomination in, rather than giving huge budgets to washed up directors who have lost their step.
You can disagree with a theory without calling it stupid. First of all, no one brought up Napoleon. Second, no one is alleging a “grand conspiracy. Third, the Academy Awards are political, and voters are on record voting for certain nominees for the silliest of reasons (someone told the Hollywood Reporter that they voted for RDJ because he was nice to them once), so you can miss me with that “iT wAs A mEsSy fILm tHaT dIDn’t DESERVE awARdS” talk. Lily Gladstone won a Golden Globe for her performance in Flower Moon and it was pretty much a toss-up between her and Emma Stone for Best Actress. Finally, streaming platforms have already won several awards. In fact, Apple TV+ already took the top prize two years ago with CODA, but I’m sure they’ll take your advice under consideration.Planet Money did a story on the economics of Oscar campaigns, which covers a lot of the thought processes that into individual campaigns, including the narratives that get built around certain movies, like the idea that Oppenheimer “saved” cinema. It’s pretty clear that the average Academy voter isn’t concerned with the same things as the average moviegoer when voting, for better and for worse.https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?i=1000648533236But please, condescend to me more.
You literally said:“I got the sense with this years Oscar’s that there was a backlash, and a concerted effort to reward traditional theatrical movies over streamers, and while yes, Killers of the Flower Moon very much received an exclusive theatrical window (and a generous one at that IMO), it was still produced by Apple TV+. I could be wrong but I think that was a factor this year.”Napoleon is also from Apple and got a theatrical release.People were also on record for voting for Gladstone because Stone already had an Oscar and because being a Native American winner would be impactful. Cuts both ways pal.It also was not a real toss-up. Emma Stone won a Golden Globe, a Critics Choice Award, and a BAFTA. Gladstone lost the Critics Choice and wasn’t even nominated for a BAFTA. Stone’s only disadvantage was that she won an Oscar already.CODA is a film Apple acquired, not produced. It also had a 10 million dollar budget (gee, sound familiar) and was made by someone who’s not a washed up male director (familiar again). So thanks for bringing that up. After spending so much money on octogenarians simply to go home empty handed, maybe they will take my (or rather, an actual Oscar winner’s) advice. And obviously the Academy is not the same as the average moviegoer, but the average moviegoer clearly didn’t have much love for Killers either, outside of Scorsese stans. And if streaming platforms have won awards, why did they specifically choose this film to completely blank? Because you liked it?But please, condescend to me more.Any time buddy, you make it easy 🙂
Napoleon is also from Apple and got a theatrical release.Ok??? This is an article about why Killers of the Flower Moon walked away empty-handed and I proposed a theory why. No one is asking why Napoleon didn’t take home any statues. Both of your replies give the energy that you care less about anything I’ve said than how mad you are that Apple gave Ridley Scott and Martin Scorsese a combined $400 million to make a couple movies you didn’t like. I’m not sure why you replied to me to complain about that.People were also on record for voting for Gladstone because Stone already had an Oscar and because being a Native American winner would be impactful. Cuts both ways pal.Yes, people were voting for Gladstone for political reasons, and many people thought she had a good chance of winning because of that. That’s not cutting both ways; that’s just reinforcing my point.And if streaming platforms have won awards, why did they specifically choose this film to completely blank? Because you liked it?1) My theory wasn’t that they “chose” this film to completely blank; my point was that this year, the Academy was sold on the narrative that cinema is something that needs to be saved. That was a big part of Oppenheimer’s Oscar campaign, and if you follow industry news it’s clear that streaming platforms are having a negative overall effect on the industry (something you apparently agree with judging from your reply to necgray). Christopher Nolan said as much in an interview where he pointed out how last year’s strikes were driven by studios insisting that they just didn’t have the money to pay the people who create the movies and TV shows you love because the math doesn’t work out. Well, the math’s not working out because the studios changed the business model to something unsustainable. I think that Academy voters, which are composed of people who work in the industry and are acutely aware of what’s happening to their profession, had that in mind when voting this year.2) I did like Killers of the Flower Moon, but FWIW if I was in the Academy, I wouldn’t have voted for KotFM in any of the categories it was nominated for, except for Best Actress, and to be completely honest, it would have been an “optics” vote. In the end, the overrated white male director I wanted to win did, so I’m not upset with Sunday’s results.Feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.
Lol you’re having a Trump-level temper tantrum. Why post on the internet if you can’t handle someone disagreeing with you?You can’t say there was backlash against films from streamers, but that it only applied to Kilers and not Napoleon. You’re the one who made up the story about backlash against streamers in the first place.Oppenheimer’s narrative was not “fuck streamers.” It was Christopher Nolan’s style of filmmaking, Christopher Nolan himself, Barbenheimer, the box office, the cast, the subject matter, the actual quality of the film, the fact they people didn’t just begrudgingly respect it based on who made it, etc. Plenty of reasons besides “We need to punish that big ol’ meanie Apple.”I do agree that streamers are having a negative impact, but it seems silly to believe there was an entire movement from an organization comprised of thousands of members from all across the film industry to not reward them instead of just accepting that Christopher Nolan is well-liked, made a highly a very successful film, and just made a much better film than Killers. You can believe the film industry is hurt by streaming AND not believe there’s some organized narrative against them in the Academy. And if even you of all people admit you wouldn’t have voted for Killers, why you wasting your time with this anti-streamer narrative?I chose to reply to you because you came up with this “backlash” narrative against streamers based on…what? Vibes? Is it that hard for you to believe that a film that took the world by storm this summer (along with Barbie) from a brilliant director won more awards than a film that people didn’t much about?
There’s “disagreeing” and then there’s calling someone else’s theory stupid off the top, then dismissing all of the reasons they gave to support their theory, and inventing claims that I didn’t make (where on earth did I suggest that it’s hard for me to believe that a film that took the world by storm this summer from a brilliant director – a film that I just said I was rooting for – won more awards than a film that people didn’t much about?). Are you really surprised that I’m meeting your hostility with hostility? Fuck off.You can’t say there was backlash against films from streamers, but that it only applied to Kilers and not Napoleon. Killers was considered a contender for many of the awards it was up for. Napoleon, which wasn’t even nominated for many awards to begin with, was not. It’s not rocket science.I do agree that streamers are having a negative impact, but it seems silly to believe there was an entire movement from an organization comprised of thousands of members from all across the film industry to not reward them I understand how you could interpret that from “concerted effort,” but I did not mean that there was an organized movement, just that it was at the front of many voters’ minds, and I have already clarified that and explained why I think that. You’re the one whose inventing this boogeyman narrative of a cabal ganging up on Apple, not me.instead of just accepting that Christopher Nolan is well-liked, made a highly a very successful film, and just made a much better film than Killers.Where the fuck did I refuse to accept this? The award Killers was most likely to win was Best Actress, a category Oppenheimer was not up for. Go look at my comment history. I’ve been rooting for my boy Oppie to sweep the Oscar’s and was not disappointed. Me putting forth a possible explanation (I even said in my original comment that I could be wrong) for why Killers didn’t win a single category is not proof I’m offended on the movie’s behalf somehow – something that again, I’ve made explicitly clear already.why you wasting your time with this anti-streamer narrative?Because you keep replying to me instead of fucking off.
Killers was considered a contender for many of the awards it was up for. Napoleon, which wasn’t even nominated for many awards to begin with, was not. It’s not rocket science.What exactly made Killers a contender for many of its nominations but Napoleon not a contender? Because anyone who followed the Oscar race knew that Killers would just be The Irishman 2.0 unless Gladstone won. No serious person thought it had a snowball’s chance in hell to actually win anything because people could tell there was no passion for the film once it went wide compared to the other nominees.I understand how you could interpret that from “concerted effort,” but I did not mean that there was an organized movement, just that it was at the front of many voters’ minds, and I have already clarified that and explained why I think that. You’re the one whose inventing this boogeyman narrative of a cabal ganging up on Apple, not me.There’s legitimately no real reason to believe it was at the front of voters’ minds other than some random-ass podcast you linked full of conjecture.Where the fuck did I refuse to accept this? The award Killers was most likely to win was Best Actress, a category Oppenheimer was not up for. Go look at my comment history. I’ve been rooting for my boy Oppie to sweep the Oscar’s and was not disappointed. Me putting forth a possible explanation (I even said in my original comment that I could be wrong) for why Killers didn’t win a single category is not proof I’m offended on the movie’s behalf somehow – something that again, I’ve made explicitly clear already.You’re literally saying that Killers lost all its nominations because of an anti-streamer sentiment instead of, you know, simply being a relatively weak film coasting off the reputations of the people attached to it.There’s “disagreeing” and then there’s calling someone else’s theory stupid off the top, then dismissing all of the reasons they gave to support their theory, and inventing claims that I didn’t make (where on earth did I suggest that it’s hard for me to believe that a film that took the world by storm this summer from a brilliant director – a film that I just said I was rooting for – won more awards than a film that people didn’t much about?). Are you really surprised that I’m meeting your hostility with hostility? Fuck off.I’m sorry I called your theory (not you, but I’m starting to lean that way) stupid, but it was. No serious person would actually believe Killers, a film from who consistently blanks at the Oscars, failed to win yet again. If anything, this is just a sign that the Academy should give the 5th or 10th slots to films they actually were impressed by instead of penciling in nominations for washed up directors who make uninspiring films.Fuck off yourself silly billy.
There’s legitimately no real reason to believe it was at the front of voters’ minds other than some random-ass podcast you linked full of conjecture.It’s an economics podcast produced by NPR that features an interview with journalist Matt Belloni, former editor of The Hollywood Reporter. You’re making it sound like two guys in Ohio recording out of their basement or something, but ok. You’re literally saying that Killers lost all its nominations because of an anti-streamer sentiment No, I’m not. This is what I literally said: I got the sense with this years Oscar’s that there was a backlash, and a concerted effort [again, I see how you interpreted this as some kind of “organized movement” and I wish I could edit this, but I meant this as in the same conscious effort being made by several voters, like any election where voters turn out with the goal of throwing out the incumbent party] to reward traditional theatrical movies over streamers, and while yes, Killers of the Flower Moon very much received an exclusive theatrical window (and a generous one at that IMO), it was still produced by Apple TV+. I could be wrong but I think that was a factor this year.in reply to an article with the headline: Why did Killers Of The Flower Moon leave the Oscars empty-handed?Either you’re purposefully reading my replies in bad faith, or you’re laughably bad at reading comprehension. instead of, you know, simply being a relatively weak film coasting off the reputations of the people attached to it. I don’t understand how suggesting that an anti-streamer sentiment was a factor in voters’ decision is somehow incompatible or in direct contrast to this, nor how the film overall being relatively weak impacted categories that are judged independently from the movie itself. I mean by this logic, there’s no way that Suicide Squad could have won the Oscar for Best Make-Up.Unless we find and ask a statistically significant amount of Academy voters and ask them why they voted the way they did in every category Killers of the Flower Moon was nominated, we simply won’t know. Which is fine. I was just throwing a possible factor out there.I’m sorry I called your theory (not you, but I’m starting to lean that way) stupidNo you’re not. but it was.Based on what? Vibes? No serious person would actually believe Killers, a film from who consistently blanks at the Oscars, failed to win yet again.This whole conversation you’ve been operating under the assumption that I’m befuddled that Killers won nothing, when I was replying to someone else’s article which asked the question above. If you’re saying the AV Club article isn’t written by a serious person, well… I would agree with you. Fuck off yourself silly billy.But I don’t think you’re a serious person either.
It’s an economics podcast produced by NPR that features an interview with journalist Matt Belloni, former editor of The Hollywood Reporter. You’re making it sound like two guys in Ohio recording out of their basement or something, but ok.OK? So what? Of course an economics podcast would throw that out there because that’s all they care about. The Academy has more than 10,000 people from all corners of the film industry. And yet there no talk of an anti-streaming narrative until after Killers flopped.I don’t understand how suggesting that an anti-streamer sentiment was a factor in voters’ decision is somehow incompatible or in direct contrast to this, nor how the film overall being relatively weak impacted categories that are judged independently from the movie itself. I mean by this logic, there’s no way that Suicide Squad could have won the Oscar for Best Make-Up.Unless we find and ask a statistically significant amount of Academy voters and ask them why they voted the way they did in every category Killers of the Flower Moonwas nominated, we simply won’t know. Which is fine. I was just throwing a possible factor out there.Because it’s a stupid suggestion. Get it through your thick skull. Just because we can’t do a survey doesn’t mean every dumb factor someone comes up with is plausible. Maybe the Academy is easily triggered by the word “Killers” and didn’t give it any awards because of that. Unless we find and ask a statistically significant amount of Academy voters and ask them why they voted the way they did in every category Killers of the Flower Moon was nominated, we simply won’t know. Which is fine. I was just throwing a possible factor out there.And by relatively weak, I meant both as a film and in each category it was nominated in (and ones that should have been shoo-ins for nominations like Adapted Screenplay). So the Suicide Squad example was dumb (interesting pattern with you…). This film was not at a disadvantage at all. Only the relative quality held it back. If anything, it had an advantage simply based on who made it and who starred in it.We also have more than two dozen anonymous people who revealed their ballots after voting ended and explained why they voted the way they did. That’s too small of a sample obviously, but literally none of them mentioned some anti-streaming narrative. And we’re talking about people who are fully willing to admit biases they have toward or against certain films.But I don’t think you’re a serious person either.I don’t care what you think of me lmao
the Suicide Squad example was dumb (interesting pattern with you…).
Not as interesting as your pattern of claiming I “literally” said things that I never said.This film was not at a disadvantage at all.Then fucking take it up with the person who wrote this article and leave me the fuck alone, you miserable piece of shit.
Because The Academy doesnt care about genocide.
Just depends on the kind of genocide. Holocaust films are Academy voter catnip.
Killers of the Flower Moon was widely anticipated but not as warmly received as expected. While it garnered a lot of excellent reviews, it also fairly quickly drew a lot of critical essays — in no small part because, after all of the press about how it treated the Osage with respect and was made with the tribe’s participation, it still foregrounded white people… as movies of this sort tend to do.And this points to the main reason I think KotFM lost every nomination: It’s really a fairly typical movie. With the exception of the radio-show sequence at the end (the one time the film surprised me), it follows a procedural plot (albeit largely from the perpetrators’ perspectives). It’s all professionally done, and I didn’t feel the run time at all: The film kept my attention throughout, which is not something I can say about Oppenheimer, for what that’s worth. But Oppenheimer plays with representations of time and is ultimately more cinematically interesting than KotFM ever aspires to be.Some have argued against the criticism of KotFM by insisting the film is about whiteness or the banality of evil. But in a year that gave us one much, much better film about race and representation (American Fiction) and two at least more interesting films about the banality of evil (Zone of Interest; Anatomy of a Fall), it’s not hard to see why KotFM didn’t resonate as much as it was expected to.Lily Gladstone deserved an Oscar (more than Stone, I’d say, as I found Poor Things a tad monotonous and more than a tad mannered), but as others have pointed out, that role is much more of a supporting part. And I’d say both Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr. gave far less interesting performances than others in their respective categories (Jeffrey Wright & Paul Giammati and Sterling K. Brown & Ryan Gosling, respectively). So I’m not here to defend any of the films that won necessarily. (Though hell yes to Divine Joy Randolph.) But I don’t think KotFM’s losses are any great crime, or that the film is going to be any better remembered than Oppenheimer.
I do think it is sort of silly that in the last year or two, there have been several takes, on this family of sites, that films ARE getting too long that that it is a self indulgent, unwelcome trend. But now that they want to support KOFM, suddenly it is some sort of slight by Kimmel to joke about its length. Personally I have zero issues with long films. If I am enjoying it, I am just fine with it. As a kid one of my favorite films was Lawrence of Arabia (although in that case there is a built in bathroom break). No issues with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly either. Nor do I mind recent long films. But there is no offense with someone poking fun at the trend either.
I do think there is also a misnomer that KOFM was dissed by not winning the actual Oscars. The very fact that it was nominated is the first stage of the awards. Those nominated films were picked as a handful of the best films of the year in their various categories. That is already “award #1″. A number I have seen is that there are around 2500 films made each year. So these films and artists were picked as roughly the best .2 to .3 % of the year in their respective categories (or to be easier to state, better than ~99.7 percent of everything else out there).“Award #2″ is who is the best of those very few. KOFM is a really good film, with really great acting, that just got beat out by another really good film. That happens all the time.
I kind of wonder what if Scorcese had started from scratch—or he’d gone ahead with his FBI story (he’d probably have won, heh)—or if it had gone to someone else who wanted to center the Osage from the start. As it is, he’s a fine filmmaker, but it’s sort fo a compromised project if it has to be retooled in the middle? Though the book is somewhat similar. It’s focus is on the famous cases, and then the last third is wipes away any sense of just being one sensational story but a litany of crimes–the true indictment if you will.
Because it was underwhelming and bloated?
Why do we need theories? Why can’t it just have not been the strongest in each category it was in? I’m glad they didn’t just give it awards “just because.”
Because Emma Stone was better and it’s not the “Most Outstanding Performance by a non-white woman” award.
Frankly, I think the main reason Killers of the Flower Moon didn’t win any awards is because they did not receive as many votes as the winners in their respective categories. Hope this helps!
I haven’t seen KOTFM, but “… it was only twenty-six minutes longer than Oppenheimer” seems to be a poor argument when we’re talking over 3 hours. I like Martin Scorsese, but the recent movies I’ve seen from him (I’m mainly thinking of The Departed) felt over-long and bloated to me.That being said, I think it would have been nice if Lily Gladstone had won.
Virtue signaling about a narrative piece of art because of its subject matter makes you no better than magas calling everyone who didn’t piss themselves over Sound of Freedom a pedophile. Also, Scorsese is one of the most overrated filmmakers in my opinion (here’s where I lose everyone). He gets great performances out of his actors and presents everything excellently, but every single one of his movies have left me feeling cold and no better for having watched them. They lack heart, likable characters, or any characters with depth to them (especially if they’re women), everything is just a stock three act story that is rarely inventive or interesting enough to stand out over the best work of his peers. And the CGI rat was stupid.
I and others believe (IMO) that Killers should have been a 4 hour movie with intermission; or a 2 part mini-TV movie; or it should have been Part 1 and Part 2. I read the book as others have and there’s a depth to the story of the founding of the FBI and the first investigation of murder by the FBI, which was on the OSAGE reservation.The FBI investigation alone would have made a great 2 hour movie with the founding of the FBI imbedded into it. But Scorsecee didn’t spend much time on it. I believe someone will come along, another producer/director, who will take it to TV and make it a mini series.
ABC has exclusive rights to many categories so Glazer’s speech cannot be uploaded by the Academy it has nothing to do with “not looking in the mirror” lol
“Considering this attitude, it wasn’t all that surprising that KOTFM took home zero awards last night, but it is galling. Scorsese’s epic was undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.”It was nominated for Best Picture, so the academy clearly agrees that it was one of the best films of the year. So what’s galling?
Her prediction ballot went heavy on the Scorsese thereby ruining the author’s chances at winning the Dune popcorn bucket at the Oscar party she attended.
Do newer voters think he’s pretentious or that watching his art is like “homework,” as one Twitter/X user suggested? Have his Marvel comments actually pissed that many people off? We’ll probably never know, but it’s certainly an odd look for the Academy.
Or maybe, and call me crazy here, but maybe the people voting liked other movies better, and it’s not some grand scheme to “snub” people? The Oscars are and always have been fundamentally popularity contests. Trying to act like there’s a rhyme, reason, or cohesive intent behind any of it is foolishness.
“The easiest to argue—and one many on the internet already have—is that most of the roughly 10,000 voting members of the Academy aren’t the biggest fans of Martin Scorsese.”To me it’s the exact opposite, they love him too much, which is why his last two films have garnered double digit nominations, but when push comes to shove the more deserving films are the ones walking away with the Oscars.
I think people see his name attached to a film and automatically vote for it. Remember Spielberg’s The Fabelman’s also got a bunch of nominations and walked away empty handed, because like Scorsese, people saw his name and thought ‘Oh I better vote for this.”
What’s all this about KMFDM?
i know, my mind keeps going there as well lolfeels like there was a plain old KMF group back in the 90s too
Possibly KLF? They were Justified and Ancient and they drove an ice cream van.
Non-US voters (just over 20%) most likely didn’t give a shit about how “important” an award for Gladstone would be and went purely for performance. I suspect Stone and Hüller totally dominated there.
Anyone who thought Lily Gladstone was going to win over Emma Stone must not have seen KOTFM. You didn’t even have to see Poor Things if you saw KOTFM to know Lily Gladstone spent her 49 minutes with the same expression, when she wasn’t poisoned in bed.
I can shorten your article.“The second potential explanation is that a lot of people put KOTFM and Oppenheimer in the same mental bucket (both filled the “legendary director, historic biopic, long Oscar bait film” niche), and Oppenheimer just edged out KOTFM in most of its categories.”And we’re done. I love Scorsese. He’s easily my favorite director of all-time, and he probably has 5-6 movies in my top 50 all-time favorites. But this happens. Oppenheimer had all the hype and momentum. It was two great movies, and they could only pick one. That’s all there is to it.
You seem to have skipped an obvious explanation – it wasn’t good enough. I was kind of offended by the luxurious running time it did nothing to earn the right to have. It was flabby and lazy in the edit.And while Gladstone was great I didn’t find it a performance that was going to stick with me or stand the test of time, which ostensibly is a part of what the award is for. Other issues absolutely apply but had she won I wouldn’t have considered it a win for the merits of the performance myself. I’m sure this makes some of you very mad.(I was gunning for Sandra Huller whose performances affected me very deeply this year, making me question the nature of humanity and my relationship to it)
My worry about this movie’s legacy is that maybe it’s never going to get a video release? It’s Apple+, and we know what happens to movies there.
It actually just wasn’t a great movie. The starkly black and white morality of it doesn’t stay interesting for even half its runtime.
It wasn’t a competition. They are not competitors. Her being indigenous did not mean she was entitled to the win so the academy could virtue signal. If it bothers you who won a little trophy or the color of who won the trophy bothers you, that says more about you than the academy.
Because it was a chore to watch.