Killers of the Flower Moon

A lot of ink has been spilled about Martin Scorsese's latest film, a 3.5 hour epic based on the book of the same title by David Grann (which I have not read, full disclosure). Grann's book explores a series of murders of the Osage people in the 1920s. The Osage discovered oil on their land and became wealthy. However, the law being what it was in the 1920s half- and full-blood Osage were appointed white guardians to manage their wealth. 

A wealthy cattle rancher, William "King" Hale (played by Robert De Niro in the film), was the mastermind behind dozens--possibly hundreds--of murders of Osage men and women in a conspiracy to steal their wealth. The film focuses on Hale and his nephew, Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio). Burkhart is a bit stupid and easily led and when he develops a crush on a wealthy Osage woman, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), Uncle Hale gently suggests that Ernest ask for her hand in marriage, pointing out that her oil money would be his. 

But it doesn't stop at wealth via marriage. Killers of the Flower Moon shows how Hale ingratiated himself to the Osage people and gained their trust while plotting to murder them one by one. There were many men working for Hale, white and Osage alike, who carried out crimes at his bidding. The interesting thing about Hale is that he appeared by all accounts a very polite, friendly, soft-spoken man (at least, that's how he's portrayed in the movie). This film shows how evil doesn't always come in the form of an angry, cursing man and that, in fact, civility is an even more effective cover for racism and violence because no one wants to believe that such a nice man could be a murderer. 

And, of course, Hale never lifted a finger to harm an Osage person. His evil deeds were carried about by men like Burkhart who had their own reasons for killing the Osage: love of money, hatred of Indigenous people, violent temper, maybe a little of all three. 

The discourse around this film has mostly been about whether or not Martin Scorsese was the person to bring this adaptation to the big screen. Scorsese clearly cares about the story and was committed to telling it thoughtfully and artfully. However, the film squarely focuses on the white people involved in the murders, pushing the Indigenous victims to the periphery. Some have pointed out that it would have been difficult to tell this story from the Indigenous point of view since many Osage individuals had no idea what was going on, and the main Osage character--Mollie--spends a significant portion of the film sick in bed (on account of being slowly poisoned by her greedy, dipshit husband). But...I can see some pathways to bringing the Osage perspective closer to the center of the film. Even just showing certain scenes from Mollie's point of view and spending more time with Mollie and her family would have helped.

I think a perfect version of this story would have been a miniseries, not a movie. There is so much information to convey that I'm not surprised that the film has a bladder-busting runtime of 206 minutes. If it had been a 4-episode miniseries, the story would have had time to breathe without numbing the asses of the audience. I also think the story should have been directed by an Indigenous person or persons. It's not that I don't think a white person can tell a story like this, but rather that the story is so painful and intimate that it seems wrong to be told by a white person. I'm not surprised that Scorsese focused so much on Hale and Burkhart--white male criminals are kinda his bread and butter. And while he *definitely* does not lionize these men or present their crimes in a romanticized light, the fact that he focuses on their faces, their conversations, their rationalizations, and their reactions shows that Scorsese is simply biased in favor of focusing on white men even in a story that begs us to pay attention to the Osage people who were brutally murdered for their money. 

However, that ideal version of this story isn't the one we got. So, putting that aside, how is this movie? Well, it's very good in my opinion, but falls short of great. Two weeks out from having seen it (at an Alamo Drafthouse with reclining seats, thank God), I have to admit I'm not thinking about it that much. 2023 has been a year of movies that people are going completely bananas over: Barbie, Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon...and yet, I remain only moderately impressed by all three. Maybe it's the problem of going in with very high expectations. 

Some positives of this film include the gorgeous cinematography and costumes, as well as the excellent acting, particularly by Lily Gladstone and Robert De Niro. Both Gladstone and De Niro give understated performances. I have to say that I think the one aspect of Killers of the Flower Moon that really has stuck with me is De Niro's performance as a soft-spoken, even kind man who turned out to be a snake in the grass of the highest level. You know how once in a while there's a villain in the movie that just draws you in? Think Hannibal Lecter or Dracula. De Niro's William Hale is like that--a character who is disgustingly racist and vile at his heart, but beguiling in his manner. It's absolutely haunting. 

The other thing that stuck with me is the story itself: a story of truly insidious racism. Because make no mistake: these murders wouldn't have happened if white men had struck oil. Sure, people kill people for money all the time. But a conspiracy like this one which happened over many years and led to the murders of dozens, if not hundreds, of Osage people...well, it had to have a solid foundation of racism for it to happen. The white murderers had to justify their actions and the white law enforcement had to justify not helping--and it's easy to justify murder when you don't see the victims as equal human beings to yourself.

In any case, Killers of the Flower Moon is a very good movie that I'm just not in love with. I do recommend it, but I also think that maybe one's time is better spent (or equally well spent) reading the book it's based on.

Grade: B+