Killers of the Flower Moon (Martin Scorsese, 2023)

[beamish14]

DiCaprio's always been slightly distracting in everything he's done his whole career, though. I actually like him overall, and I respect that he is pretty choosy about his roles. But he's never really been great in anything that I've seen - he's a big movie star who gives big movie star performances, it's just that it's a little jarring because he postures so hard as a Serious Actor, which is a different thing.

And, I mean, any big movie star is going to come off well in a Tarantino film - big movie star performances are what his movies are all about.

I’ve just always had a difficult time accepting him as an adult in many films. His run of pre-Titanic performances, particularly in Agnieszka Holland’s criminally underseen Total Eclipse, The Basketball Diaries, and the wonderfully fun The Quick & the Dead, all enable him to capitalize on his innate boyishness in a way that few films in the last decade have, save for The Wolf of Wall Street (where he’s a stunted man-child)

[therewillbeblus]

DiCaprio brought such diverse physical comedy to Wolf of Wall Street in addition to complex addict drama that’s both deceptively and accurately superficial. It’s such a layered performance and handily his best.

I do remember reading about FLOWER MOON that DiCaprio's role had been downgraded, with Plemons being the film's main lead. Doesn't seem to have been the case. We'll see, of course.

Scorsese has often said that he truly finds the movie during the editing process, so it might have been a case that DiCaprio’s story just came to the fore at that time. I doubt it, considering DiCaprio is certainly a key part of how the film got the financing it did.

DiCaprio was cast in Plemons’ role initially as the clear lead, and then opted to play the ‘supporting but more complex/interesting’ character. This led to Roth needing to do extensive rewrites to the script to make him more of a central character, which I feel like he wasn’t happy about (from some interview he gave). I didn’t read the source but I wouldn’t be surprised if Plemons’ character goes from lead to supporting and the story focus changes from investigative procedural to DiCaprio’s moral dilemmas, or something like that.

[hearthesilence]

I haven't seen much outside of the Scorsese and Tarantino films, but I really like DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can. The boyishness definitely helps there.

[Matt]

DiCaprio is actually Exhibit A in the very online idea of “twink death,” which seems to have occurred for him when he turned 30 (coinciding almost exactly with The Aviator, in which his character ages from a young man into early middle age). It’s almost like you see it happen in real time.

It’s going to be a real car crash when this happens to Timothée Chalamet because he doesn’t seem to have a face that’s going to age well and he’s already 27. Or he could pull an Alain Delon and gradually transform from pretty to handsome.

Sorry for the superficiality, but this really does have an impact on an actor’s credibility in certain types of roles.

[FrauBlucher]

Matt, not at all. I've felt the same way about DiCaprio for quite a while. His boyish looks just don't fit some roles. The Revenant was one of those roles that his boyish looks wasn't believable for that character. But the one role that I felt like that worked was Revolutionary Road. His young, immature appearance and personality was believable especially the way Kate Winslet destroyed him

[Randall Maysin Again]

Well, I thought he was much better at playing a .... R-word .... person in What's Eating Gilbert Grape then whatever the hell Brad Pitt is supposed to be doing in 12 Monkeys. Pitt really should have at least two of his Academy Award nominations rescinded. I wish that was a thing haha, especially if I personally got to do the confiscating! I like Leo's acting. His accents generally suuuuck, but... I think I first really noticed his talent as an actor when he bursts into tears right after

SpoilerShow

shooting and killing his crazy wife

in Shutter Island--a powerful scene.

[Black Hat]

Why do all of these films look like crap? I can't imagine a young person watching a Hollywood movie being bowled over by the immense beauty of a shot. This was never an area Scorsese was much interested in but, still, quite surprising to see a film of his with the same, dreary, washed-over look of an MCU flick. I think marketing these films that way is also stupid but, that's another, even more annoying conversation.

[bluesforyou]

Why do all of these films look like crap? I can't imagine a young person watching a Hollywood movie being bowled over by the immense beauty of a shot. This was never an area Scorsese was much interested in but, still, quite surprising to see a film of his with the same, dreary, washed-over look of an MCU flick. I think marketing these films that way is also stupid but, that's another, even more annoying conversation.

You have a childlike understanding of beauty.

[tenia]

Well, no, there are too many dreary washed-out movies released nowadays, and adults should actually be more vocal about them so that maybe the related people will realise digital sludge is not a nice look.

[FrauBlucher]

Why do all of these films look like crap? I can't imagine a young person watching a Hollywood movie being bowled over by the immense beauty of a shot. This was never an area Scorsese was much interested in but, still, quite surprising to see a film of his with the same, dreary, washed-over look of an MCU flick. I think marketing these films that way is also stupid but, that's another, even more annoying conversation.

I agree. I hate that "dreary washed-out" look. As far as Scorsese The Age of Innocence was quite a pretty film. I can only imagine what they would do with the look of Lawrence of Arabia if they decided to a remake. Ugh

[Rayon Vert]

Yeah we went over this a few months back on this same thread. I generally keep away from modern movies (basically this millenium!) in large part because of that.

[therewillbeblus]

Are we talking about artists using one visual tone for "dreary" / serious subjects, or a washed out look overall? I thought Wolf of Wall Street was a recent bright, digitally-shot film appropriate for its subject. We aren't at a place where filmmakers are gonna shoot the desert in Lawrence of Arabia like it's Seattle or anything, but I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying

[FrauBlucher]

I don’t believe that locale has anything to do with the look. I think filmmakers/studios like this look and will apply it to any film thinking that’s what their target (younger) audience wants, as per comment up thread responding to black hat. So yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me if LoA got a redo it would be a bleak, dreary washed out kind of look. Unless, a filmmaker with old school sensibilities was the helmer. But even then I would be skeptical

Edit: Btw… I used Lawrence of Arabia as an example of an older film that is aesthetically brilliant. There are many from cinema’s past that I’m afraid are less appreciated by today’s standards

[GaryC]

Are we talking about artists using one visual tone for "dreary" / serious subjects, or a washed out look overall? I thought Wolf of Wall Street was a recent bright, digitally-shot film appropriate for its subject. We aren't at a place where filmmakers are gonna shoot the desert in Lawrence of Arabia like it's Seattle or anything, but I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying

Wolf of Wall Street was 35mm mostly, though it used digital for low-light or nighttime scenes. That's tended to be Scorsese's method in recent years, though the de-aging software in The Irishman necessitated those scenes being shot digitally.
As far as I'm aware his only all-digital dramatic feature was Hugo, presumably because of the 3D.

[tenia]

it wouldn’t surprise me if LoA got a redo it would be a bleak, dreary washed out kind of look.

Or it would be that glossy teal-and-orange obviously-digital look of the opening desert sequence in John Wick 4.

Are we talking about artists using one visual tone for "dreary" / serious subjects, or a washed out look overall ?

I think we're rather talking of a whole array of movies or TV shows that are shot as if left RAW rather than color-timed, as if it's the cool new thing to do (like too many of the Marvel movies since Disney bought Marvel). There was also, for instance, the comparison between Dexter and its recent revival. I was also amazed at how Orphan: First Kill looked, which really felt like "yeah, let's just not time it at all and leave it RAW".

[bluesforyou]

Well, no, there are too many dreary washed-out movies released nowadays, and adults should actually be more vocal about them so that maybe the related people will realise digital sludge is not a nice look.

Doesn't apply to Scorsese/Prieto. Irishman is the most digital of their films and even that is very colorful. Not to mention color is captured by the camera but created by the production deisgn. You can't just chalk it up to digital sludge. It is mostly poor production value and directors not having the eye for these things. That is not a problem for Scorsese.

[tenia]

I agree with you, I just meant it in general.
I would however argue that "digital sludge" is anyway a new kind of poor production value / poor director vision that is getting a bit too recurring. Like, there are many ways for poor visual flair to be visible on screen, but in some ways, several movies converge towards this specific look.

[halcf]

I think a lot of the digital sludge comes from more and more prevalent use of LEDs instead of tungsten, HMI, Kinos and other old school light sources. Almost any LED light you see if a series of LEDs shining through layers of plastic. They don't cast shadows the same way and they given a washed-out and monotonous look to a lot of otherwise great photography.

[flyonthewall2983]

New trailer

[Michael Kerpan]

I wonder if this movie might not be too painful for me to watch -- speaking as someone coming from Oklahoma who was (and still is) horrified by this portion of my birth state's history.

[Soy Cuba]

Yeah we went over this a few months back on this same thread. I generally keep away from modern movies (basically this millenium!) in large part because of that.

That's so sad.

[dadaistnun]

Excellent profile of Jack Fisk in NYT Magazine.

[hearthesilence]

Excellent profile of Jack Fisk in NYT Magazine.

This was especially great: “When I grew up, period films often looked like costume dramas,” he told me. “Nobody was dirty.”

Amusing because Jon Jost has a habit of trashing movies based solely on publicity stills and often refusing to watch the movie as a result. One of his stock complaints about any period movie, especially if it's a studio film, is how it looks fake and unconvincing because no one gets dirty, everyone's clothes look clean and spotless. He lobbed the same grievances at Killers of the Flower Moon after seeing the first batch of stills released for that film. (It was suggested to him that making such a judgment on the basis of publicity stills was misguided to say the least, but he wasn't swayed.)

[beamish14]

Excellent profile of Jack Fisk in NYT Magazine.

This was especially great: “When I grew up, period films often looked like costume dramas,” he told me. “Nobody was dirty.”

Amusing because Jon Jost has a habit of trashing movies based solely on publicity stills and often refusing to watch the movie as a result. One of his stock complaints about any period movie, especially if it's a studio film, is how it looks fake and unconvincing because no one gets dirty, everyone's clothes look clean and spotless. He lobbed the same grievances at Killers of the Flower Moon after seeing the first batch of stills released for that film. (It was suggested to him that making such a judgment on the basis of publicity stills was misguided to say the least, but he wasn't swayed.)

I can’t think of a film from the last 25 years that exemplifies this more than Anthony Minghella’s Cold Mountain. Look at Nicole Kidman and compare her to every other person in the cast. I think Minghella even mentioned this in his commentary

[therewillbeblus]

Who the hell watches Scorsese films and thinks toxic masculinity is being portrayed positively?

Certainly not anyone who’s seen this film. I can’t recall the last time I’ve watched such an angry movie, painfully unflinching and temporally loose to fulfill Scorsese’s instinctual fury, historically-sewn despondency, compromised honor to the victims, and goal of shoving our faces in the repetitive, pathetic behavioral patterns and consequences of delusional rationalizations from wealthy white Euro-Americans. Scorsese sees at-least-European humanity as inherently amoral, and the ways he rubs our noses in its presentation and ramifications are unapologetically blatant and occasionally diverse (believe it or not, as heavy as this is, it’s also quite funny) but this mostly flows as a gradual combing of amplified, cyclical actions based on fear - and greed, which comes from fear.

I preferred this approach in his last film, The Irishman, which delivered a more complex and progressive existential experience. The two films aren’t only connected by their length, but hold similar themes and very similar subversive tactics for engaging with their leads - and how it allows/coerces its audience to engage with them. There's too many specific shared traits to touch on, but for starters, both films pick at the actual lack of glamour in feebly complacent 'following the leader' routines dreamt up as Winning Life, and distance us from our leads to obfuscate the value in these vapid aspirations just as we witness our non-surrogate subjects fail to grasp their obfuscated 'selves' without that carrot drooping.

This film wasn’t supposed to be as subtle as that one. It functions as the aggressive body-shaking wake-up call to follow The Irishman's pensive unveiling of defense mechanisms towards a mirage of potential for revelation; here it's just spotlit in focus and furious - Scorsese has moved from deep sadness to his "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore" geriatric phase. I get that any shred of sympathy Scorsese felt towards his naive subjects before is bludgeoned here, replaced by an introverted depression at the fatalistic manipulations spun in these systems, with irreversible tragedies locked in stone. I also agree that slicing off fat would be insulting on some level and certainly clash with its purpose, and yet this film swims in circles rather than evolves into much. Its intentions for naked anti-manipulation were as obvious after hour one as they were at three, and the content is largely unvaried too, which can cause unintentional disconnect alongside the intentional kind. The Irishman used its runtime to build to a cumulative effect, where the extent of its thematic ambitions were realized and felt in several powerful reveals towards the end; this film establishes its ethos and stance and proceeds to dangle opportunities for Hollywood saves over and over while deliberately avoiding the bait.

While that doesn't always feel necessary or stimulating, Scorsese is clever in how he sobers the audience to what we’re looking for - an out - and why? Fear, discomfort, the same that DiCaprio is experiencing as he engages in his actions and non-actions (which, perhaps the biggest takeaway of the film, count as actions)? All interesting questions posed as a mirror for us, in a mostly-interesting and well-made, acted, and written film. The strategy might feel superfluous to reapply after his last effort, except that Scorsese does go further with the deconstruction and destruction of myth, this time referentially using the form itself: Rubbing us in friction with the artifice we seek so roughly that the structure eventually caves in and gives us a denouement cheekily enriched in it - though simultaneously serving as the most sobering reminder of the joke of it all, the erasure from history, and the impossibility of altering course in the present... The (literally, but decidedly not figuratively) show-stopping coda oddly resembles Charlie Kaufman's last feature's final chapter more than any influence I can think of offhand. It's a film that doesn't need to be as philosophically complex or labyrinthine as the previous one, because the weeds have been cleared by this point in time to allow the stripped emotions and defined morality to sit pronounced and speak for themselves.

So I liked this, and was impressed by it, and it's probably the one Scorsese film I can safely say I'll never feel compelled to sit through again. I appreciate the demands Scorsese puts on his audience, and how he supplants expectations in narrative peaks and characterization movement to feed his appropriately-condescending vision of American Evil - I just didn't always feel connected to what Scorsese obviously wanted to keep me connected to throughout. But the admiration for getting asses in seats and making us sit there with a history lesson of agonizing non-growth outweighs any small gripes - and I'm really curious how mass audiences are going to react to it (and I wish I could've been a fly on the wall of Apple's executive room post-initial screening as people realize what they paid for).

Anyways, a few more stray thoughts of praise: I hope they campaign Gladstone for supporting actress so she doesn't have to contend with Emma Stone and they can both go home winners [Everyone’s good here, though, especially the smaller parts of petty criminals who feel most lived-in and least performative - at times you can feel the thespian efforts of the three principal leads a bit too much to take you out of it, though that may also be part of its meta-intentions..] Also, the extensive rewrites to get at both the delicacy and candidness of the dialogue is perhaps the strongest feature of the movie. DeNiro's lines in particular need to weave in finer bendings of gentle logic sincerely applied and retracted in every conceivable situation, while also hammering in the deliberate absurd evil with frank text. It's not an easy balance, but Roth and Scorsese pull it off.

SpoilerShow

This also may be the most cynical film I've ever seen: Scorsese is forcing his audience to endure 3.5 hours of repetitive close confrontations with cyclical delusional rationalizations from its main characters, with no moral growth amongst the fearful, entitled capitalists who still rule the world, and always will. I realize the only yearning -that drives an artist from depression with vitality- is to dignify the specific story into permanence through crystallized recognition, given the history that was washed over even in Molly's obit. But as an epic, it's about something far more concerning and hopelessly indomitable: the irreparable course our history has launched. Would make a good double feature with Oppenheimer