I appreciate the context your provided in this video. My Great Grandfather was Henry Roan who was murdered in this book and film. Thank you for explaining how the Guardianship policies of the day had such an impact on Osage people's life choices.
_My Great Grandfather was Henry Roan who was murdered in this book and film._ Yet people watch this film and with blinkered insight - ask - "Where were the Osage men?_
I did not mean to imply he wasn't. It's a different kind of awkward if I were to expressly say he was killed in real life as well as the book and film. She raised the question, I tried to answer.@@Myaccount923
I wish he’d done this as a 10 episode series with an indigenous writers room cause it’s apparent that a lot of contextual information was left out. Even the soundtrack painted a wider scope than the actual film
@@AlachiaWhat's funny is Lily and Leo researched all this ahead of time before Scorsese even came on. Seems to me he's the director cause he paid for it to be a big event film that'd see general audiences and not "just be a niche thing"; and that meant rewrites. I still like the movie for what it does, but a lot of it's empty minutes and from your description the book is the full fat and we missed out.
Also someone made a great point: you were not in a rant. You provided great and valuable info about the history of the story and the perspective of the film.
I first heard of this horrific tragedy on NPR some years ago when they had a discussion about David Grann’s book. Back then I thought this was a story that needed to be told to as many people as possible in the mainstream and should be a film. When I heard that Scorsese would be directing the film and was working closely with the Osage to bring this story to life on the screen, I was very much looking forward to it. When I watched the film, I thought they demonstrated the racist policy of the financial “guardians” pretty well and I completely understood why Osage married white people in part to have more control over their own finances through their spouses and for their children to also inherit the head rights with more control themselves. So, I didn’t leave the theatre with any questions as to their “Why?” I did leave the theatre feeling absolutely haunted by Lily Gladstone’s performance which was the heart and soul of this film. I left the theatre angry about these atrocities and even more driven to learn more about the Osage and what they went through during this period and afterward.
At one point Mollie goes to her original guardian to ask for money to go to Washington long after she would have had the guardianship transferred to Earnest. That's why I didn't think the movie conveyed that point well.
@@Alachiaexactly , they did it for her to make a financial decision without the knowledge and consent of her husband. But it didn't make sense The actions of the Osage did not right true. I asked why a lot. Then watched a couple documentaries, one was interviews of the actual family. The things changed where to add a white savior aspect or to make the colonizers seem more kind/sympathetic than they actually were
That is the history of 98% of American Progressive Cinema. Mississippi Burning rewrites history so that the white FBI agents commit policy brutality to protect the Blacks from the Ku Klux Klan. Yea...no. [FBI has been infested with Klan and NAZI and every kind of fascist from its inception right up until a very recent moment when *one of their own* - who happened to now be the commander 'n chief turned on them - out of pure self interest. lol. The capacity of America to lie to itself cannot be overstated.
15 minutes into the movie Mollie says she's incompetent, I watched 3 hours more to find out why, and I just got it in this video. Thanks I guess I will read the book.
I totally get your perspective, but I also feel that the director told the story´he was most comfortable with, and with Scorsese that usually is the story of evil white men (Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street). The questions you had are totally worth its own story, but I don't think Scorsese should be the one to tell it. Also, you bring up a problem that happens with a lot of movies, especially those that don't fit into one specific category (romance, mystery, etc), which is that what the creators wanted to tell and what marketing companies try to sell usually aren't the same thing. I can even imagine the marketing team seeing Dicaprio and Gladstone hugging and decide "let's sell this as a romance".
Exactly. I remember Rian Johnson having this problem with Glass Onion. He didn’t want it to be marketed as a Knives Out murder mystery, just as one of the many investigations by the private investigator. Many people were complaining about this and I had to humble myself because casual movie goers really don’t know how the game works and don’t know when to leave the advertising at the door. As soon as the “mystery” was solved 30 minutes into the movie and things didn’t really look like a murder mystery I knew the genre was almost entirely different
When the credits rolled in my theatre (in Ireland) I heard a couple behind me talking about it, and the first thing the man said was “Well, we learned f*** all about the Osage people.” To which the woman replied that that was her main problem too. And I found myself agreeing with them. Thanks for providing the needed context, as well as an insight into what this movie could have been. I find it genuinely amazing that a 3-and-a-half hour movie had so little actually in it about the topic it was trying to present.
What a shame right? 250 million dollars and no one else could have gotten this movie made... I wish Scorcese had taken this opportunity to do something no one has done in a blockbuster budget film... Showcase the story of the tribe.
I dig your perspective. I also did enjoy the film. It was loaded 3.5 hour run time. The world building felt authentic. I didn’t expect every perspective to be honored in the film, but I did enjoy how it sparked my curiosity to learn more about the tribe and it got me on RUclips to learn more about the oil money and why women of the tribe married greedy white men. I never read the book, maybe the book did a better job of giving more of that information. I’d love to see a documentary to complement the film to give more of that context. But thank you for shining light on those blind spots.
@Bchristensen This is very much my perspective too. The movie prompted me to pick up the book, which is amazing. I also recently learned that there is a documentary in the works from George DiCaprio.
Yeah, I just came back from watching this movie as a black woman the whole time I was like, these women know exactly their position in these men's lives and yet, even if it were to elevate their statuses, they just go along with it? Even Mollie, who knew how to navigate white society but still kept her heritage at the center of her worldview, gives Ernest way too much grace despite the inhuman things he's done to her individually and to her family/lineage and we don't understand why. She didn't even like the guy but all of a sudden she's ready to sacrifice her self-respect and becomes completely blind for Ernest? Like this theme, along with the actual story, should have had a way bigger place in the narrative.
It’s not a human thing. It is a colonialist thing. The most important thing to understand is that indigenous people are human beings,colonists are followers of domination. This is true today as it was in the past.
Back in the early 1800’s the Mexicans came up with the perfect term for the white settlers that came in and appropriated the green good land they saw. The term is : Gringo, meaning that they go where the GREEN is.
I totally loved the movie. It’s a long movie but well executed. If you know your history then you know why these women wanted a white man. The white man used booze and religion to conquer cultures. They were looked upon as being the best. Everything they did/do was based on greed and money. It’s sad that the tribes abandoned their own culture for another culture religion.
The first time I heard about the Osage massacre was during a documentary about Elizabeth Marie Tall Chief, the first Native American Prima Ballerina. I'm not into ballet but I would rather see a biopic about her than this movie.
It was obvious that they married them for money, but why did Rita marry her sister's husband. Wasn't there any Osage men left. King was the wolfe who destroyed them from within. He was evil
I really appreciate your perspective on this. I'm Puerto Rican myself and when the question of "Why are all these Osage women marrying white gold-diggers" arose my brain went in a similar direction. It is extremely noticeable both in my surroundings and within myself that the cultural erasure that comes with colonialism has created a profound disconnect with not only our traditional ways but even with our own people. I come from a fairly well off family which has benefited from the systems set upon us by Spaniards and Americans alike, and though I only realized it in my later years, an internalized shame and avoidance of my more Latin aspects was instilled in me that I would have to deconstruct years later. Similarly, our material conditions were heavily impacted as the Puerto Rican peso was outlawed by the U.S. regime, making us dependant on the integration of Americans and their ways. It's somehow refreshing, as well as disheartening, to see how different peoples are able to sympathize with one another through their plights and history. I'm quite a bit more charitable to Scorsese on this front as I believe the way he writes stories would simply not do the Osage justice were he to tackle this from their perspective. An understanding of these events happening wouldn't necessarily allow him to tackle the matter with the necessary nuance, or just as importantly, credibility. With this film, I believe Marty did what he's always done best: Explore the nature of evil men and their evil actions in a way that is not reductive to the reality of how it comes to pass. Not attributing it to simple sadism or cartoonish, all-encompassing hatred, but rather the pursuit of ever-larger power in a system where said power is the only true arbiter of law/order/justice/etc. Were he to tackle much of these subjects, it would not only come across as callous or potentially even victim-blaming at times, it would take focus away from the depravity, injustice, and surrounding complacency that sit at the heart of this film's message. It is more a cautionary tell than anything else in my eyes. Although...I think we can all agree the marketing could've done a much better job representing the final product. 🤣 I think at the end this is mostly just a difference in opinion here. Your criticisms are very well thought out and provide interesting insight on their own, even when separated from the movie. This is the first of your videos I've come across so keep it up! I'll definitely be adding your content to the lineup of filters I've amassed for movie theatre money-spending from now on! I hope someone of a Native background makes the movie you were hoping to see some time soon, that's a story that deserves its own 3+ hours; I'd love to see it!
Thanks so much for taking the time to share that with me! I still wish Scorcese had stuck with his original plan to tell the story from Tom White's perspective. I think it would have fit his style better.
@@Alachia personally think that telling it from his perspective would be quite a bit white saviourish i was much happier with the product that we got rather than a mystery i love how it was a very blunt and right to the point tale
_Why are all these Osage women marrying white gold-diggers" arose my brain went in a similar direction_ I think the answer is there but so ugly that people don't want to see it. Marry Osage man - the whites kill your man. Marry white man - the white man kills you. Refuse to marry the white man - the white man kill you. Fight. And be killed. Run - they did run -that's how they ended up in an Oklahoma wasteland that was supposed to do the dirty work for the whites, but ironically ended up being oil fields. Cuz - yeah - that's what genocide is..... Clear now?
@@issiadiii2167 Absolutely agree with this perspective. Scorsese would have been skewered if he had focused on the white Bureau of Investigation character.
Settlers along the frontier viewed the indigenous people as not worthy of controlling so much land. Back East, many tribes remained, although did move west. You are totally correct in describing human behavior: When groups come into conflict, the opposing group is made less-than human. It goes on today. The practice of appointing guardians goes back to Colonial New England & the native groups there. It also happened with the Coaxen land in New Jersey, which was owned by the natives there, but overseen by Quaker guardians.
How tf do you know what "the settlers" collectively felt about "indigenous people"? Oh wait, you don't. You just made up a sentiment and assigned it to a demographic of varied people that you lumped all together.
To me the movie isn't meant to be a 'Who dunnit'. Is more about the How and Why. I do agree that a better understanding of the Osage perspective, would have helped. That said, Lily Gladstone was , was just wow, wow, wow!!!
I went looking for reviews of this movie and came across this, and it's maybe one of the best / most-well-informed reviews(?) of a movie I've seen on RUclips. I love your thoughtfulness!
The Osage seemed to be clueless or helpless. I think incompetent is rough but accurate. Where were the Osage Men? I appreciate that Scorsese showed in no uncertain terms who the villains are and how they used American infrastructure to commit these kinds atrocities. However, the portrayal of the Osage was frustratingly passive in their demise.
Okay. I guess not a lot of people are going to watch the whole video. Totally understandable, it's a rambling rant. The answer to the question is at 21:21
Good post: From the history channel: _The tribe’s oil wealth attracted hordes of white, marriage-minded suitors. According to McAuliffe, “single Osage women became objects of hot pursuit,” prompting a “flood” of letters to the Osage Agency seeking oil-rich brides, sight unseen. C.T. Plimer of Joplin, Missouri wrote a typical missive: “I…want a good Indian girl for a wife… For every Five Thousand Dollars she is worth, I will give you Twenty Five Dollars. If she is worth 25,000 you would get $125 if I got her.”_ Even the history channel can't bring itself though to state one critical missing fact: *It was ILLEGAL for white WOMEN to marry an Indian.* And this..... _Congress passed a law prohibiting the Osage from managing their own money._ The entire structure of American Society was white supremacist...it could no more be navigated by the Osage than concentration camps of NAZI Germany could for the Jews.
I appreciated the review, I understand others having different opinions on it but I watched the entire video and I’ve enjoyed your thoughts for a while now. Thank you
At first I really wanted to defend the movie, because I thoroughly enjoyed it and was deeply moved about what it had to say about complacent evil that's so easy to slip into. But as Alachia went into detail I was like "Wait, the book *gave that context* I thought was missing in the movie? Wait, the book had *that POV* as well? What happened to a whole ⅔ of the story that got chopped? Gimme"
I was looking for someone who felt the same as I did after watching the movie and found your review. One thing to mention is that because who was behind the murders was given away so early in the movie the audience was always ahead of the story for 3 hours. Movie was from the least interesting perspective.
I feel like most of what you explained was pretty clear from the film. I’m not sure why you didn’t like it. It doesn’t spell it out, but it’s all over the film in between the lines.
She can’t help but find something wrong with it. It was a victim mentality rant that came out as constructive criticism, Because not even she understands where it came from. Emotion had completely taken over by the time she pressed record.
Still watching, but you're talking about how this wasn't a whodunit, but a lot of people already know the Osage story so it would make no sense to do it that way. We know whodunit, this was a "howcatchem"
I saw the film last week and my opinion on it has softened a little. I think this is actually an example of “too many cooks in the kitchen”. Scorsese said originally that the movie was going to be from the POV of the BOI agents and it was going to be very unclear who was behind the killings. Then supposedly members of the Osage tribe begged him not to “make the movie about all the white guys” So Scorsese changed directions but…seemingly only halfway because a big part of our focus is also on the murderers so there’s no “mystery”. I’m also convinced he made it less entertaining on purpose…he supposedly had some guilt about turning a murder case into a movie at all by the end Also…DiCaprio saying he loved his wife and then not showing that in his actions was *the point*. Ernest did NOT love Molly, but he always swore he did even after attempting to poison her
This is so well done thank you for covering all basis. my Creek, Choctaw, and Cherokee ancestors enslaved their darker family members upon being forced to Oklahoma and abandoned their spouses and children that were deemed too "dark"/black. It's like one generation they went from living as a family unit to separating themselves. It's really about the power dynamics and the propaganda and not race
I don't see it that way at all. Institutional racism based on skin color causes minorities to turn on their darker brethren due to a self hatred of being dark - as an effect of colonization. You can see this phenomenon all across the world. Example: India and its obsession with fair skin. The power dynamic rewards the lighter people. The closer to white, the better off you are. Yes, power is involved, but it is all based on race and the dehumanization of indigenous people.
You're being way too nice Alachia. I hated this film. It's obviously set up for Oscar hopes but everything about this story is patronizing and frustrating. You hit it on the head when you described it as a true crime reenactment piece focusing on the criminal. And sadly thats the biggest fault of this film. I haven't read the book but I'm willing to bet cash that Scorsese ommitted and changed a lot!
@Alachia 💯 And I'm sorry, I usually like Leonardo's acting choices but the dental prosthetic is absolutely ridiculous. Totally distracting from his acting.
@@mephistro You do know that he is famous for his Mafia movies, right? I mean, I get the idea that movies shouldn't focus on the criminals but rather on the victims, but if that is the case, pretty much all Scorsese movies are guilty.
Thanks for having the courage to call out the real problems with this movie. Most reviewers are blinded by the spectacular production values and the star director and actor names. I do respect all the hard work that people put into the film and it is a shame that the script is so wrong.
Yes this movie made the Osage seem simple , and easy to take advantage of . When in reality yhe entire social structure was fram worked to to whete osage had no power i did like how he showed how much of vultures the settlers were . I thought he couldve really explained the perspective of mollie alot bettwr because i really wasnt sure if she actually knew. What hwr husband was doing , or if she just turned a blind eye . Not the best story telling for the osage . This movie somehow still out white men to the front and narives to the back and yet the story was supoosed to be about them. I do think it was Scoresasses job to highlight these things considering he decided to create the movie . No excuses .
This is great context, and thanks for providing it. "Killers of the Flower Moon" should have been an in-depth miniseries in my opinion, because there is so much story to tell. People complained about the length of the movie, but it should have actually been longer.
Im never surprised at what yt's will do for the power and wealth and have done. This Queen woman is playing it down, there is a clear pattern of a group of people who have done this everywhere same style same pattern. Last time im watching her work truth is truth I wonder who her partner is???? hmmm lol
Was it dumb that they kept marrying white guys and they all kept ended up dying and nobody connected the dots when it was going on, sure. But all the movie did was recount what happened in the book that it was based on. I doubt the book even answer that question because everyone involved with this has passed on. So we can't ask Molly why she and her sisters did it. I also don't think that was the point of the movie and it shouldn't be knocked for not answering that. The point of the whole movie was that this incident was horrible and not even talked about really. WHO HERE HONESTLY HAS HEARD ABOUT THIS INCIDENT BEFORE THE BOOK OR MOVIE?, it don't matter why they kept marrying white dudes (it was dumb yes but we have the power of hindsight here). You shouldn't be murdered because you make a foolish mistake and can't see a wolf in sheep's clothing. Love makes you blind. Think we can all agree on that and relate to that.
You know a great reviewer when you binge watch the whole review from the first time you see her content and how she logically analyzes each aspect of the movie, Without even watching it. Happy to subscribe❤.
KEEP GOING! I'm your new fan! My would say, "The right people will love you, and the right people will hate you!". Being yourself is the only way to be in our short lives on this planet. Keep Going! Your style is so refreshing.
It's best to read David Grann's book because the history underlying the film is extremely complex. I saw the movie with my son and daughter, my son and I had read the book and we had discussed it with his sister and watched documentaries months before the movie. It's not an easy movie to watch without any context. Even if you just watch documentaries beforehand, it will really help you grasp what a great film Scorsese has made and what great acting De Niro, Di Caprio and Lily Gladstone deliver in it.
I always love your commentary BUT I think you may have been expecting this film to answer questions it was not designed to. If the film tried to answer EVERY question we may have as to the whys, we'd still be in the theater right now. 😂😂😂 I think we have the responsibility to educate ourselves on the unanswered questions and dig into the subject matter by other means than this film. I TOTALLY agree that Leo's character didn't love his wife at all. I never got the impression this was going to be a murder mystery. Hell... We KNOW who's behind it in one form or another. I think the press conference Scorcese and the cast had at the Cannes Film Festival may shed light on why he told the story the way he did.
No disrespect to the brilliant Mr Scorcese, Ive enjoyed several of his other works. However,. I do think his storytelling prowess sort of falls short in certain areas of this particular piece of filmmaking. This story really deserves the long form format of a well written and acted streaming series. The key point she makes with her shortcomings with this film are an inability to view the events unfolding from the perspective of the indigenous themselves. Unfortunately,..what also oddly is interesting is that it seems like often, .white men seem to really really often be happy to just see other white men being featured prominently at the forefront of a story like this! Which deals with complex racial issues and white guilt issues,..and then are satisfied and ready to declare a film of this type as a "masterpiece" because their representation and perspective was prominent. Im certainly not saying a movie has to embrace "white guilt" in order to be and feel "authentic" but the perspective of the victims in all this should have been more of a priority for such a renown filmmaker and one should have to "dig deeper" in order to understand teh basics of a complex story. one should only have to "educate ourselves" on background issues and other minutia of a particular piece of filmmaking. Im also not trying to take anything away from teh very very brilliant Martin Scorches,..I just think he might've even bitten off more then even HE can chew with this truly complex and racially sensitive story.
I saw the movie in the theater Friday night. It may be an unpopular opinion but I don't think Scorsese did a good job telling this story. As you state - he glosses over the issue of guardianship, and the cultural issues between Osage women and their white husbands. Instead Scorsese wastes enormous amounts of screen time on pretty shots and long silences while failing to answer these basic questions. He implies that state and local law enforcement was corrupt, and also that jurisdictional issues involving the murder of Indians on the reservation were used as an excuse to not investigate despite clear evidence of foul play. But where were the tribal police? Did the Osage even have tribal police? So many unanswered questions, given that this movie is nearly 3 1/2 hours long it seems inexcusable.
Lady...you are talking about a situation that had developed over many years for it to be explained in 3.5 hours , and people was already complaining the movie was too long . The crux of the movie is yet again white people practicing white supremacy in gaining wealth that had nothing to do with fair competition based on merits which they like to preach to others needing to adhere to . Stop dancing around in calling it for what it is . Any white people that is offended over the truth don't give a shit about the atrocities committed but only for their image of supposedly being the top of the heap of humanity . This is what Governor DeSantis and his ilks are concerned about and they will call anything that expose their crimes against humanity as " Woke " , as if being mentally " Asleep " is better . smh But , I guess ignorance is truly blissful for them .
I think you are spot on, with your review, and brilliant commentary. Thank you. You really helped me see things from their point of view, in terms of why they were marrying these white men. If I had to go through a stranger, someone considered my money’s guardian, and they benefited from that relationship, it make’s perfect sense to marry a white man, even an obvious gold digger, because he would at least be keeping the wealth in the family, and could become the guardian thus removing the middleman… and hopefully the interest they showed is genuine, and perhaps a romantic connection could continue despite the monetary advantage… The educational perspective, leading to major cultural differences between the old gen and new gen, also explains the attraction to white men, as more fitting American parters to live out their lives with, and pass on to their children a better chance to be seen by society at large less as a savage (pains me to even use that word, it’s disgusting)… It’s horrifying what was done to these people to make them dislike their own culture so very much, and very, very sad how effective it was, as well.
Yup. That's why I'm so disappointed in the film. The movie makes it seem like it was just a couple of bad dudes who were the cause of Mollie's suffering... But the point of the book is that it was the entire system. It gave way too much credit to Earnest.
We as a society are currently training future generations to hate their own country. People refusing to do the pledge at school, divorce is a perfect option if you are bored, and it’s okay to use the government to censor people you don’t like.
I’ve seen a couple reviews at this point and I’m very happy I saw this one. You do a great job breaking down a lot of this. I haven’t seen the movie yet but reading up a bit and seeing videos I thought about the same exact things you’ve explained in this video. So well done, I appreciate the review
What I didn't get is why she wanted to go back to her husband as he was literally standing in jail for the murder of her family members. Is that what really happened in real life? It wasn't until she realized he had tried to kill her also that broke the camels back.. up till then she was cool with it all.
I get why you’re trying to elegantly dance with this topic however there is a distinct difference. Throughout history most of the time it would be people within their own race in conflict etc. The distinction which makes America a little unique is the conflict was race based. They felt only them the settlers who were white were deserving of anything the land/country had to offer and all other people did not deserve to benefit from anything at all because they were beneath them.
And don't apologize for being a realist, Alachia. If the storytelling is greatly flawed, and an affront to what occurred in reality, tear it apart. Your truth is refreshing. Scorsese just aint that deep. If he cared about substance, that movie would have had narration, especially for 3.5 hours.
@jasminekaram880 Do you know what narration means ? It provides context or it enhances the existing narrative. It provides a more detailed explanation of the character or the occurrence. Morgan Freemon is the narrator in "The Shawshank Redemption." Ray Liotta is the narrator in "Goodfellas. These are examples of narration.
There are some deeper questions about the relationship america has with native Americans; 1/ American government still hasn’t had that hard conversation yet or (set up the proper channels to let that come about)with the remaining native american communities. What would that conversation achieve for the future of america? would that change anything i don’t know… 2/ Historical presentation of native american people have been one sided and caricatures- not largely contested publicly ( drunks living off in reservations, naive, simple people, not much to offer etc.) 3/ the fast assimilation of native Americans into white culture by force or naturally has created this ‘am 10% or 20% native nationalism’ in america which has nothing to do with Native american cultural identity or progressive heritage values but a hijacking of a diluted cultural component overseen by US government for couple of centuries. 4/ Pocahontas to Molly the great trope that American culture has put forward time and again of the quintessential Native American woman with a white lover is so entrenched in the culture that Scorsese can easily play that angle in this movie without having to justify the whole logic or character development in the film - molly being one dimensional is a classic example of that lethargic character development, she is a easy sidekick to leave outside the spotlight and focus on the main character Ernest and the plot 5/ America is nation built on rivers of blood and european racism - some point in history Americans as a nation will be made to face that reality and seek reconciliation from the past but would this movie do it ??? NO! that time is still to come … Till this movie came out residents of Oklahoma or US schools never mentioned one bit or knew at large anything about Osage people or their misfortune indeed not their murders!!!
You know the old saying. History is written by the victors. I found it appalling they don't teach this in Oklahoma State History Classes. Is that true? Maybe they have long forgotten it. It was buried for nearly a century.
Im not sure how anyone could think that it was obvious to the osage that William Hale was the person behind these murders. It absolutely is NOT obvious to them. Quite the opposite. And the film makes it obvious to US, but it’s pretty clear that Hale is pretty much respected and deeply appreciated by the entire community. That’s the whole point of the film. This man played the long game, aimed to gain their trust over many years, to then het rid of them and take their money; and the osage tribe trusted him and opened their land to live peacefully with the white men. I think it’s important to make a distinction between being justifiably trusting, and just plain dumb. I never saw the osage as dumb, even a little bit.
Hmmmm, a colonialist power constantly squatting on the land of an indigenous population even after the land was promised to be set aside for them… What modern conflict does this remind me of?
0:26 It definitely felt like it was a captivating and well paced film; I was never bored and didn’t realize that the movie was over 3 hours long till I got out of the movie theater. While I still like the film, your review pointed out legitimate mistakes this movie made that can’t be hand-waved away.
Yeah I agree that the movie should have included more of the Osage backstory into the movie. Though I do think that general audiences have a broad understanding that America has been and continues to be racist. So it's not a stretch to believe most people wouldn't understand that the US government made laws to screw over the Osage
Excellent video and take. I am not surprised that your question was not thoroughly put in the movie. Assimilation is the key to destroy many minority cultures around the world. I'm reading the book now. Thanks so much for your perspective. I learned some things!
I am a black woman. And I could not watch this movie. I appreciate telling this story because I never knew this happened. But I found myself getting mad watching the movie. Then I started ignoring it. I hope someone of indigenous descent can remake this story . I could not understand how all that was happening.
I’m a black man. I didn’t look away once because it was important to me to see it all. They mentioned the Tulsa massacre more than once. There’s a lot of subtext that requires an understanding of American history that I think was just taken for granted. To put it shortly: there are several reasons for them marrying white men. The biggest part is survival. They knew the only way to survive was to take the white mans money and get involved in the system because they already know what happened to the black people in Tulsa. Please try again. Without the emotion of it, if possible. The options were to die, or take this fake deal and fake money. They survived.
"I could not understand how all that was happening." ^ I mean this in a supportive way when I say - then - you don't really understand America. You only know the Disney version....and not its dark truths.
@@hirograveyard8236 the movie portrays the Osage as people that get married because of love, so you are telling that it was better to portrays the Osage as people that did fake marriages?
I get that this is not an Osage story at all and I know that that's not what Scorsese is trying to make. But he made the characters of DiCaprio and De Niro look so "cool" and "edgy" that the film almost became like a gangster film to propagate white supremacy.
well fantastic, exactly, its not believable from a guy like him, normally cellebrating gangsterhood to leave it up to the viewer to carry the moral of a story, when he is not capable of showing what it is that defines their evil. but you said it better, same thought ! thanks roman herzog should have done that movie
It came across to ne like they just married the white men to get connections and to get mixed children that could potentially have even more opportunities. The only relationship that seemed genuine was Molly and Ernest, because they were the only ones that weren't talking superficially about their relationship. Ernest did fucked up stuffed, but he was shown to be the only husband that actually enjoyed being around his wife, his kids and actually gave a shit about Molly's condition. You don't hold your wife, as she's dying in bed, and not give a shit. It could have been better fleshed out, yes, but Ernest acted differently around his wife than the others did. That was how they differentiated him. These were superficial marriages. It was like reverse assigned marriages lol. As for the murder mystery aspect....how was it advertised as a murder mystery? Every trailer tells us that it's King in charge of all the killing. I guess the only mystery could be how Ernest was involved, but the trailers constantly imply he's complicit or at least knows who's doing the killing. That's how it's different from the book. It's not supposed to be a mystery in the movie. Tho, I do wish we would've gotten more of the Osage pov. Maybe through Henry as well and/or an extended flashback of Molly's life until that point. Even the trials could have been a miniseries, itself. I think the main reason the movie was depicted this way, was to appease to the tribe. The Osage were apart of the writing process and approved the final cut, I believe.
@@Alachia the scenes when molly goes to the white official appointed by US government to give her own money based on her requests - in the end when she wants to go to washington the same white dude - government appointee denies her request to give her money because he was not convinced by her genuine reasonings - so when you mention osage people were very wealthy, well they were not given control over their finances by the US government!!! so criminality runs deep in American history….
This movie was more of a Columbo-style narrative. Its a "Howcatchem" instead of a "Whodunnit." I thought the movie was good but hard to watch and still suffers a bit from having Euro influences rather than Native Americans telling their story from the inside out.
Reminds me of the John Woo FILM about WW2 Native American code talkers starring Nic Cage, who was the main focus with the actual code talkers practically being background characters in a film titled about them.
Sorry. Euro-colonialism decimated the indigenous by hook and crook. The same dynamic is at play in Gaza. Internecine Native wars paled in comparison to the brutality committed by 'the settlers.' That said, Killers of the Flower Moon tried to expose the systemic evil used to poison and kill the Osage Nation for profit. Hale and Burkhart looked like shit, so on this point, the movie succeeded. I agree that the Osage perspective should've been front and center, but this film wasn't made for the Osage Nation. It was made specifically for the American public and exposed the systemic white supremacy against the indigenous.
think so too, i look at those roasted bodies and the dead kid, hear someone scream in anger and sadness..and almost think"but the mainstreammedia told me that this doesnt matter!?"
I think the film is trying to make you research the story afterward. it is not a documentary, and it can't be. like the last video you have said, a lot of people was asking this questions, and that is the point. the point is make people ask question and research it. the movie used the very designed ending to not giving satisfaction of the story, it is meant to tell people things are recorded, you need to go read them. I never know about this story because 1.I don't live in america, 2. they don't teach this in school. after I watched the movie, I never thought "how dare the movie don't tell me everything i want?" Because I know it is a movie and I start to read more about the story and the history. I think the movie did what it suppose to do. Not by telling you everything you need to learn but build your interest to go learn things. A film is an art form of telling story, not educating people about history. After I see WW2 movie about Japanese people mass murder Chinese, I don't go ask "why the movie didn't tell people why so few Japanese solider can kill some many Chinese civilians, why didn't they fight back?" That will be a very dumb question to ask out loud. If people have questions and care about the answers, they should go do their own research, or watch the videos like this you just made to explain it. movies are not here to help comforting people's ignorance. whoever asked this type of questions out loud is either very simple or just don't care about finding things themselves. If there is a movie about DV, should they spend sometime to explain why the victims stay with their abuser? Movies are not public education tools, they are story telling tools that can help public educations. I bet you money this movie made many people start to research this part of history. at least all the people who actually care about the truth. people who ask a question in a RUclips comment section and think that is research does not care about the questions they asked to begin with. Anyone who would care about the question would have do their own research. when do we start to think ignorance is some type of honesty? when do we start to think we should help people who jump to victim blaming understand why they are wrong? If someone don't know something, go find it out, don't show ignorance and think a movie owe people answers. Also, if someone see victims and first reaction is asking why the victims become victims, that should ring some alarm,s people who do that should ask themselves why that is the first thought, why they didn't bother to find that out instead of asking youtube sections. Victim blaming should never be the first thought of anyone.
Excellent framing - why did these women keep on doing this self-destructive stuff? A work of fiction doesn't have to provide answers. But good art will haunt you with answers.
Alachia - I think this was one of your best videos ever... because it was just entirely your view, and your understanding. I'll recap my situation - I'm a white (50+ yo) Australian male, and not only have I not seen the movie, I've also no personal connection to the Osage. And that should bracket my comment. There's a couple of things that came to my mind in listening to your essay...firstly, I as someone who has married a Japanese immigrant (into Australia), I 'think' I have gained an appreciation of the difference between (myopic) progressive/multiculturalism that we bestow upon ourselves as a nation, and the often very different experiences of people trying to navigate different worlds. We often don't see the struggles of others, and don't value their voices. The Osage were effectively immigrants in their own country - just powerfully vulnerable ones. I constantly see the tension between what Australia as a whole wants to be, and what we are. Not being down on Australia - it's just that all peoples around the world need to consider differences, and also to respect those differences. Having said that - we're all tenants of our own biases and history. The whole story also reminds me of my time in South Korea - where historical families who had ties to the DMZ were being targeted for marriage because of the tax benefits (for South Koreans) that could bring... this is happening today. I never knew the DMZ was actually a very cultivated land, because we are told it's a wasteland... but we likewise don't understand that historical chance can often create imbalance that others seek to exploit. And yet, it is set against a totally unique and weird context. The other personal connection I have is that Australia just voted overwhelmingly to deny indigenous people a (non-enforcable) voice to our Australian parliament in our recent referendum... because of a range of 'excuses' over this that or the other... without really understanding that what we were doing was imposing OUR (the 'new Australian' view) on the original people. It's not just a white-Australia thing, it was always a feeling of unfairness that someone else would get something that we didn't. So many new migrants into Australia voted against the referendum because they felt they would be disadvantaged further. In fact the divide was often seen along 'wealth' lines. People don't tend to see the humanity, when they feel their rights are at risk. It's not an easy subject, and there are many counter-arguments. However I really applaud you for putting your own view down - I wish I had my own YT voice to do likewise, rather than just commenting on the sidelines. Sorry for clogging your comment space with so much verbage. Just a big kudos to you. We need more voices to actually raise questions - as a person, not as a commercial position. For that reason, I don't think that Scorsese actually has a good understanding of what this story was about... I don't see a lot of cultural empathy from him as a director (perhaps my bias). At least, the movie might initiate a lot of these discussions.
@@Alachia sorry - it's often easy to think everyone knows acronyms (a curse of the modern age). DMZ = De Militarized Zone... it's the agreed gap between North and South Korea. For many people who haven't been there - it has the image of being a mine-field wasteland - but in reality it's a fertile part of the countries - just bookended with bad PR (except for tourists) and a national symbol of suffering and wrong... But the reality is that there's been families that have tilled the land and lived their lives for 60-70 years since the war in this 'no-mans-land'. It's a weird in-between world, like the world 'before colonisation' and 'after colonisation'. It feels like it should be black and white (like why do people do this to themselves), but it often isn't ... because of history, inherited shame, rewards, hopes/dreams, and promises of a different future. And also the ever-present mis-information. Even now people live through denial because society enables it. As an example, it is now an economic lever, to provide those families (and the people that marry into it) tax benefits in the South. Or at least that's what I learned talking to a lot of South Koreans in the know.
@@Alachia PS - I really don't think people need to read my 'verbose' self-indulgent comments. I tend to only get into commenting when I'm inspired or challenged. Don't sweat having to respond, but at least thank you for asking the question. 🙂
That's very interesting. I didn't realize this. I am interested in learning more about it and will look into it. Thanks again for sharing all of this with me!
@@Alachia it's an observation I made thinking about your question - how could this happen, and it immediately made me think of how these artificial societal frameworks happen even today all over the place. Having said that - I also took a step back and realised that I'd heard this story from a very limited number of people... and it makes me think how much we trust what people tell us. But I also believe that this is exactly how it happens, because it suits the community/government to do something, so they don't dis-encourage people do something (because it's beneficial). Whether they actively encourage is a different thing - but human nature being what it is, we can bet someone will seek benefit from any situation. Having said that - the question needs to be asked - what did those communities gain, and what other fate did they avoid? History is complex.
I really respect this take. I had thought it myself. I really didn't understand why the women were attracted to these white men. But you explained it really well and it definitely makes sense now. I only watched the movie today, so my thoughts are still pretty raw. But this is currently what I think, and I'm curious to hear other thoughts. Martin Scoresese obviously isn't Osage and so I don't think he can tell the story from that perspective and do it justice. I think it would require someone from the Osage community, or at least a native director to really do it justice. This would be a much lower budget movie that wouldn't get anywhere near enough attention. So given that he's not, this is probably the best perspective he could give whilst also maintaining authentic storytelling. When researching I found out that it was originally going to be told from the perspective of the FBI. Luckily, the feedback (which I understand to be from Osage consultants) was that this would come across as another white saviour story. So at least what we got is much better than that. The other thing is, the vast majority of the audience aren't Native American. There was something about telling the story from Ernest's perspective that made me feel like it was a mirror to the audience. People convince themselves that they care, but their actions (or inaction) reveal their complicity. I don't want to come across as an apologist. I do agree there's much more that wasn't told. I think answering all the questions would require a different medium like a documentary. I think this does a good job of highlighting an injustice, and hopefully peaks enough interest that people do their own research. Coming from the UK, I was aware of some of the overt atrocities that were done to Native Americans, but was much less aware of some of these more covert acts of violence.
I loved the movie. Haven't read the book yet. At first I was a little put off about your criticism of the film. Your research and commentary makes sense. I wish they had included that information. Thanks 💯
How many crybabies there are here, Scorsese makes a great film showing the horrors about the Osage people which motivated many people to research on the subject and buy the book, mission accomplished, but they want everything explained and pre-digested, make their own film or documentary if this film hurts them so much, now they pretend to know more than the director about how to tell the story, professional haters who are offended by everything
I understand the difference between personally enjoying a movie and appreciating the quality of a movie. I'm able to separate those things. I give this move a C+ for a different reason. I wanted to cry for the events depicted. I'm an easy crier. I've cried at a lot of movies. This movie didn't have the heart centeredness I wanted. I wish Spielberg would have written/directed this one. He knows how to make people cry. They just didn't tell the story that I wanted told. All that being said, I give this movie an A+ for the quality of it.
Great historical insight Ms. Queen. I think Scorsese did an excellent job constructing this film and story from a certain pov. I left the theater loving this movie, so much so that i just saw it for a second time in the theatre, however I had a lot of issues with the story and love how you answered my questions. Subscribed. Can’t wait to check out your analysis of other films. :)
Two thumbs up for this commentary. I enjoyed the movie, but it was obvious there was a lot of context missing. Until your video I also wondered "why" and now it makes so much more sense. I understand Scorcese's desire to please the Osage people, but changing the narrative meant a lot was left out which ultimately led to a much more shallow story. I think he should've stayed true to his original vision.
If you take a look at American History the motivations might be made clearer. The movie is a perfect example of how racism and greed can combine to cause pain and destruction among those not in the Dominant society. Also, you saw a brief glimpse of how the dominant society often resorts to violence. You may not have recognized it but the is a glimpse of the TULSA OKLAHOMA Massacre on Black Wall Street. I was happy that Martin included that. It was in the same time period.. and the same State. It's like what hapened in Rosewood Florida and Wilmington North Carolina. Also... aside from the pillowtalk in this film, it's mostly historicaly accurate. As much as any Hollywood picture usually is. I also think the picture is more of a Historical Crime drama than it is a who done it murder mystery. I think you have asked some good questions perhaps more time and study will reveal the answers to you, of course that may become more difficult in the light of the attempt to get rid or real history and replace it with more "feel good" material. The good lessons of history are also often painful.
I actually do know the answers to my question which I explore in my history ramble. I think what I find the most frustrating shit historical crime drama like these is that they make it seem like people back then were just bad.. that these were isolated evil men who did bad things. But they were part of a system that still remains to this day... And just making a few bad men "the problem" is trivializing the scope of the crime
Excellent excellent points!!! I agree with you on the point you make about systematic racism. There's not a lot about WHY the Osage people were even forced to be on that land. They were smart enough to buy...rather than be forced onto a reservation they were lucky to be on that land, unlike many of the other tribes. Unfortunately as often happens, when the dominant society found out it was like Welles' WAR OF THE WORLDS.."They regarded this Earth with envious eyes and slowly and surely drew their plans against us..."
Very good breakdown to explain the “why’s” of the film. I read the book before watching the movie and wondered why Scorsese decided to tell the story from the beginning exposing who were behind the murders. Almost as if to make the murders the entertaining part. I had a huge problem with that and the movie could have been much better if the first half was told from the perspective of the Osage who had no idea of the machinations their “friends” were capable of. I learned even more through your breakdown.
Are you sure that your dislike of the evil people in this film has not caused you to dislike the film itself??? Knowing this was by Scorsese, did you really think this movie would be about anything but the evil people do and how they justify it to themselves? This artistic approach can be beneficial to an audience, even though it doesn't cover ALL relevant issues to this historical event.
I didn’t watch any trailers and loved the film didn’t even think it was meant to be a murder mystery film but that’s fair when that’s your expectations via the trailers
As a black Latina I asked myself the same question. Why did they keep marrying these loser white guys? Weren’t they suspicious of their motives? I think Marty was either blind to the choices women are forced to make based on societal pressures or he was afraid that if he shone a light on them and did wrongly he would feel the backlash. There were three places where it was subtly placed. When Lizzie Q berated her daughters for their choices in partners. When Mollie remarked on what Ernest’s skin looked like next to hers. And when she told her sisters she was attracted to his blue eyes.
Thank you for this!! I was really getting frustrated with why these Osage women kept marrying white men with everything that was going on. Surely there had been enough history by the 1920s for them to know not to be so trusting. This explains a lot and as long as that movie was, should have been included.
I never fully believed the romance in this film. I get Ernest's love for Molly, despite the awful things he did, but I never get what Molly sees in the him. It just happens to due to plot. The film kind of just shows the Osage woman having the hots for white guys despite all the reasons they shouldn't. One scene that puzzled me when watching the film in theaters is when the Osage leaders gather together to discuss the murders and how the white man diluted their beliefs and made them vulnerable and then he hands over the speech to Hale, the obviously suspicious white guy. My first thought was, so we aren't going to start looking into him more? He probably would have been my first suspect. Showing more background with the Osage with Hale and why they trusted him would have helped. The film wasn't awful but just disappointingly flawed, because you know it could be better. Especially given the source material and the long runtime. We can dedicate a scene to Robert De Niro spanking Leonardo DeCaprio with a paddle, but we couldn't expand upon on the setting and relationships between Osage, White Settlers, and the FBI?
I love the point you bring up about the paddle. exactly. It would have been more useful for them to have shown the history he had with the Osage and how he spent decades integrating himself with their community. He was never an obvious suspect for them for a long time.
I read the story and saw the movie and you are absolutely right. I wondered why the Osage women married white men. Your explanation was very enlightening.
I appreciate the points you made with this video. The answer to your question was touched on in the movie. But it wasn’t really hammered home in the movie. There was a scene where Molly went and was asking for money and was getting told no. Or was being questioned about the expensive meat she was buying. But they didn’t clearly connect the dots in the film. Also I feel that this movie is more of a crime drama and not a murder mystery. But I think they definitely should have spent more time with how the native people felt about what was going on in the community. They should have focused more on the community in some places. But I felt that the movie was trying to be more about showing how “normal” it was for people to plot on others and be two faced to commit crimes, and how conplicebt people are. But I felt they wanted to just lay bare how these people interacted with other criminals. Whats also funny is I think this is a “love” story, but it’s not a love between people, but what a love of money will lead too. But I agree that they could have added more elements from the book and I like the comparison between the source material to the movie. But I appreciate your perspective on this movie
The Scorsese approach of “humanizing” the horrific criminal is not appropriate for this story. This is a real history with real people and a genocide that many of us are still experiencing today. It is very triggering for the film to take this approach especially after publicizing the massive script rewrite they really made it seem like it would be an Osage story. Considering the MMIW epidemic and the context of historical genocide the last thing we needed was a “complicated” abuser who murders Native women for money. I also hated the dances with oil scene like wth even was that. Mollie’s story was the only one that was really told and it was twisted into a demented love story. 99% of the Osages on screen were just there to get murdered. It was disappointing.
In 2020 an attempt to steal my inheritance claimed that I was unfit to inherit. I’m a retired professional who has owned her own home since 1984, earned two degrees and taught without any bad evaluations for over 20 years. I had to get a lawyer, accused is guilty. The book is good, skipped the film.
Watched it all. I appreciate your reviews. 🙂 I think honest reviews are rare nowadays since Siskel & Ebert passed on. Their thumbs up or down system wasn't meant to discourage anyone from seeing any movie as they loved movies, but it did begin to influence ticket sales as they became more well known. I don't think movie studios want anything like their show on TV again.
Appreciate your insight. I like the movie for what little it does. *The book sounds better.* For better or worse, the movie is 100% about answering the question, "how can a normal white guy be acclimatized into genocide, even betraying his own loved ones for the cause?" Ernest's POV is the POV of the vast majority of the white audience that'll be watching this. (Per the movie) he didn't start it, he didn't harbor any particular ill will, just a simple man going off what was handed to him; "it's not my fault this is the norm". I wouldn't concoct a double-life, or conspire to murder, or torch someone's house. But I absolutely would bend over backwards to defend someone I trust, and stay silent about the shit they ask me to do. Yeah, in the right circumstance, some version of me could easily slip into being an Ernest. And that scares the shit out of me. I roll my eyes at racist stereotypes of white hillbillies shooting guns in the air and obsessing over how they can beat down the black guy with the boys. That shit ain't me, and it never has been. But cowardice and denial, that is real to me. This movie showed me where I _would_ be in this situation. All that being said, the book sounds 3 times better. Much as I appreciate the white guilt representation done right, all my favorite scenes are the scenes with Mollie and the fam. Could've used a whole 90 minutes of just that. The movie's 200 minutes long; they could have showed the Osage perspective AND have the Ernest character as well. *They had the runtime.*
You hit the nail on the head why this film was such a disappointment, wasn't necessarily the weak performances, the lack lustre script or the lack of suspense. It's that the movie does not do a good job of depicting the situation and the conditions the Osages had to live in nor did the film scratch the tip of the iceberg how the killings were possible under a corrupt system, government officials that kept ignoring the problem and the involvement of several oil barons and other oligarchs.
I'll make distinction here. In regard to the resources of the planet, there are two kinds of people. People of Nature and people of Fiction. People of Nature rightly believe that the sun, the moon, the stars, anything of nature, AND THE LAND cannot be 'owned.' It was here before you were born, it will be still be here after you die. So how can you 'own' it? That's technically true. But one consequence of that is that when two tribes of Nature arrive at a scarce resource at the same time (a watering hole, for example), they more often than not are going to fight over it and kill each other over it, because it is human nature and because "needs must when the Devil drives.' The Indians had war parties long before the white men even came over. That is why the People of Fiction developed the legal fiction that one can 'own' land. If one guy is recognized to 'own' this piece of land and the other guy is recognized to 'own' that piece of land, then its clear who was the right to use certain pieces of land and who doesn't. No fighting all the time. (or a least a lot less fighting). The problem the people of fiction then have is that parents want their children to make out better they did. And so the prophet rages "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth Isaiah 5:8-12 (KJV) I.e., wealthy land owners marry only wealthy landowners until you get something like Europe at the beginning of the Age of Exploration, where every scrap of European land was owned by some Duke, or Count, or King. It was literally land office business when the people of nature were discovered. And the thing is, the people of fiction were not all white people. And if you play a game of Sid Meier's Civilization, you find out that the Civ that usually wins is the one that lives closest to the best resources. Because that's how technology is acquired. That happened to be true of the Europeans. Shear dumb luck. And now we're got the infamous 1%. Owners of almost everything. All because parents love their children.
I appreciate the context your provided in this video. My Great Grandfather was Henry Roan who was murdered in this book and film. Thank you for explaining how the Guardianship policies of the day had such an impact on Osage people's life choices.
_My Great Grandfather was Henry Roan who was murdered in this book and film._
Yet people watch this film and with blinkered insight - ask - "Where were the Osage men?_
did you know that he was also murdered in real life?
@@ba_charlesright I was a little confused as to how they worded it
I did not mean to imply he wasn't. It's a different kind of awkward if I were to expressly say he was killed in real life as well as the book and film. She raised the question, I tried to answer.@@Myaccount923
I wish he’d done this as a 10 episode series with an indigenous writers room cause it’s apparent that a lot of contextual information was left out. Even the soundtrack painted a wider scope than the actual film
I'm not convinced he was the man to tell this story as much as I really appreciate that he did try
Apple / Scorsese are supposedly working to adapt the movie in multipart tv episodes. Hopefully more fleshing out the characters and story
@@AlachiaWhat's funny is Lily and Leo researched all this ahead of time before Scorsese even came on.
Seems to me he's the director cause he paid for it to be a big event film that'd see general audiences and not "just be a niche thing"; and that meant rewrites.
I still like the movie for what it does, but a lot of it's empty minutes and from your description the book is the full fat and we missed out.
@@hendrikbareno7426 I hope that this happens. I found the movie fascinating.
@@samwallaceart288read the book, don't be lazy...
Also someone made a great point: you were not in a rant. You provided great and valuable info about the history of the story and the perspective of the film.
I first heard of this horrific tragedy on NPR some years ago when they had a discussion about David Grann’s book. Back then I thought this was a story that needed to be told to as many people as possible in the mainstream and should be a film. When I heard that Scorsese would be directing the film and was working closely with the Osage to bring this story to life on the screen, I was very much looking forward to it.
When I watched the film, I thought they demonstrated the racist policy of the financial “guardians” pretty well and I completely understood why Osage married white people in part to have more control over their own finances through their spouses and for their children to also inherit the head rights with more control themselves. So, I didn’t leave the theatre with any questions as to their “Why?”
I did leave the theatre feeling absolutely haunted by Lily Gladstone’s performance which was the heart and soul of this film. I left the theatre angry about these atrocities and even more driven to learn more about the Osage and what they went through during this period and afterward.
At one point Mollie goes to her original guardian to ask for money to go to Washington long after she would have had the guardianship transferred to Earnest. That's why I didn't think the movie conveyed that point well.
@@Alachiaexactly , they did it for her to make a financial decision without the knowledge and consent of her husband. But it didn't make sense
The actions of the Osage did not right true. I asked why a lot. Then watched a couple documentaries, one was interviews of the actual family. The things changed where to add a white savior aspect or to make the colonizers seem more kind/sympathetic than they actually were
That is the history of 98% of American Progressive Cinema.
Mississippi Burning rewrites history so that the white FBI agents commit policy brutality to protect the Blacks from the Ku Klux Klan. Yea...no. [FBI has been infested with Klan and NAZI and every kind of fascist from its inception right up until a very recent moment when *one of their own* - who happened to now be the commander 'n chief turned on them - out of pure self interest.
lol. The capacity of America to lie to itself cannot be overstated.
@@carlao7157Yeah I'm just watched it and saw the white savior aspect from the rip
@@Alachia I assumed that her husband would not have agreed to ask for the money, so Mollie had to take that on herself.
The reservations were not set aside lol they were forced to live there
15 minutes into the movie Mollie says she's incompetent, I watched 3 hours more to find out why, and I just got it in this video. Thanks
I guess I will read the book.
I totally get your perspective, but I also feel that the director told the story´he was most comfortable with, and with Scorsese that usually is the story of evil white men (Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street). The questions you had are totally worth its own story, but I don't think Scorsese should be the one to tell it. Also, you bring up a problem that happens with a lot of movies, especially those that don't fit into one specific category (romance, mystery, etc), which is that what the creators wanted to tell and what marketing companies try to sell usually aren't the same thing. I can even imagine the marketing team seeing Dicaprio and Gladstone hugging and decide "let's sell this as a romance".
Exactly. I remember Rian Johnson having this problem with Glass Onion. He didn’t want it to be marketed as a Knives Out murder mystery, just as one of the many investigations by the private investigator. Many people were complaining about this and I had to humble myself because casual movie goers really don’t know how the game works and don’t know when to leave the advertising at the door. As soon as the “mystery” was solved 30 minutes into the movie and things didn’t really look like a murder mystery I knew the genre was almost entirely different
When the credits rolled in my theatre (in Ireland) I heard a couple behind me talking about it, and the first thing the man said was “Well, we learned f*** all about the Osage people.” To which the woman replied that that was her main problem too. And I found myself agreeing with them. Thanks for providing the needed context, as well as an insight into what this movie could have been. I find it genuinely amazing that a 3-and-a-half hour movie had so little actually in it about the topic it was trying to present.
What a shame right? 250 million dollars and no one else could have gotten this movie made... I wish Scorcese had taken this opportunity to do something no one has done in a blockbuster budget film... Showcase the story of the tribe.
I just watched this film. I agree 100%. I learned NOTHING about the Osage tribe. Disappointing. 😒
This movie was garbage. Scorsese is garbage. 🗑️
The love story is the love the white man has with money and greed…
Even now
I really liked your insights and the way you explained things in this video. It was very eye opening.
I dig your perspective. I also did enjoy the film. It was loaded 3.5 hour run time. The world building felt authentic. I didn’t expect every perspective to be honored in the film, but I did enjoy how it sparked my curiosity to learn more about the tribe and it got me on RUclips to learn more about the oil money and why women of the tribe married greedy white men. I never read the book, maybe the book did a better job of giving more of that information. I’d love to see a documentary to complement the film to give more of that context. But thank you for shining light on those blind spots.
@Bchristensen This is very much my perspective too. The movie prompted me to pick up the book, which is amazing. I also recently learned that there is a documentary in the works from George DiCaprio.
I had been wondering about a lot of this while watching the movie, so really appreciate that you went over it and provided all of that context.
Yeah, I just came back from watching this movie as a black woman the whole time I was like, these women know exactly their position in these men's lives and yet, even if it were to elevate their statuses, they just go along with it? Even Mollie, who knew how to navigate white society but still kept her heritage at the center of her worldview, gives Ernest way too much grace despite the inhuman things he's done to her individually and to her family/lineage and we don't understand why. She didn't even like the guy but all of a sudden she's ready to sacrifice her self-respect and becomes completely blind for Ernest? Like this theme, along with the actual story, should have had a way bigger place in the narrative.
It is a timeless tale that has been repeated throughout human history.
It’s not a human thing. It is a colonialist thing. The most important thing to understand is that indigenous people are human beings,colonists are followers of domination. This is true today as it was in the past.
YOUR 1000 PERXENT RITE Those women were thinking their kool aid is cooler...................For them it is not you lol
Back in the early 1800’s the Mexicans came up with the perfect term for the white settlers that came in and appropriated the green good land they saw. The term is : Gringo, meaning that they go where the GREEN is.
I totally loved the movie. It’s a long movie but well executed. If you know your history then you know why these women wanted a white man. The white man used booze and religion to conquer cultures. They were looked upon as being the best. Everything they did/do was based on greed and money. It’s sad that the tribes abandoned their own culture for another culture religion.
They weren't messin' with no broke people...
😂
The first time I heard about the Osage massacre was during a documentary about Elizabeth Marie Tall Chief, the first Native American Prima Ballerina. I'm not into ballet but I would rather see a biopic about her than this movie.
It was obvious that they married them for money, but why did Rita marry her sister's husband. Wasn't there any Osage men left. King was the wolfe who destroyed them from within. He was evil
This was my question too👀
I really appreciate your perspective on this. I'm Puerto Rican myself and when the question of "Why are all these Osage women marrying white gold-diggers" arose my brain went in a similar direction. It is extremely noticeable both in my surroundings and within myself that the cultural erasure that comes with colonialism has created a profound disconnect with not only our traditional ways but even with our own people. I come from a fairly well off family which has benefited from the systems set upon us by Spaniards and Americans alike, and though I only realized it in my later years, an internalized shame and avoidance of my more Latin aspects was instilled in me that I would have to deconstruct years later. Similarly, our material conditions were heavily impacted as the Puerto Rican peso was outlawed by the U.S. regime, making us dependant on the integration of Americans and their ways. It's somehow refreshing, as well as disheartening, to see how different peoples are able to sympathize with one another through their plights and history.
I'm quite a bit more charitable to Scorsese on this front as I believe the way he writes stories would simply not do the Osage justice were he to tackle this from their perspective. An understanding of these events happening wouldn't necessarily allow him to tackle the matter with the necessary nuance, or just as importantly, credibility. With this film, I believe Marty did what he's always done best: Explore the nature of evil men and their evil actions in a way that is not reductive to the reality of how it comes to pass. Not attributing it to simple sadism or cartoonish, all-encompassing hatred, but rather the pursuit of ever-larger power in a system where said power is the only true arbiter of law/order/justice/etc. Were he to tackle much of these subjects, it would not only come across as callous or potentially even victim-blaming at times, it would take focus away from the depravity, injustice, and surrounding complacency that sit at the heart of this film's message. It is more a cautionary tell than anything else in my eyes. Although...I think we can all agree the marketing could've done a much better job representing the final product. 🤣
I think at the end this is mostly just a difference in opinion here. Your criticisms are very well thought out and provide interesting insight on their own, even when separated from the movie. This is the first of your videos I've come across so keep it up! I'll definitely be adding your content to the lineup of filters I've amassed for movie theatre money-spending from now on! I hope someone of a Native background makes the movie you were hoping to see some time soon, that's a story that deserves its own 3+ hours; I'd love to see it!
Thanks so much for taking the time to share that with me!
I still wish Scorcese had stuck with his original plan to tell the story from Tom White's perspective. I think it would have fit his style better.
@@Alachia personally think that telling it from his perspective would be quite a bit white saviourish i was much happier with the product that we got rather than a mystery i love how it was a very blunt and right to the point tale
_Why are all these Osage women marrying white gold-diggers" arose my brain went in a similar direction_
I think the answer is there but so ugly that people don't want to see it.
Marry Osage man - the whites kill your man.
Marry white man - the white man kills you.
Refuse to marry the white man - the white man kill you.
Fight. And be killed.
Run - they did run -that's how they ended up in an Oklahoma wasteland that was supposed to do the dirty work for the whites, but ironically ended up being oil fields.
Cuz - yeah - that's what genocide is.....
Clear now?
You said what I was thinking and tried to say but more eloquently.
@@issiadiii2167 Absolutely agree with this perspective. Scorsese would have been skewered if he had focused on the white Bureau of Investigation character.
Settlers along the frontier viewed the indigenous people as not worthy of controlling so much land. Back East, many tribes remained, although did move west. You are totally correct in describing human behavior: When groups come into conflict, the opposing group is made less-than human. It goes on today. The practice of appointing guardians goes back to Colonial New England & the native groups there. It also happened with the Coaxen land in New Jersey, which was owned by the natives there, but overseen by Quaker guardians.
How tf do you know what "the settlers" collectively felt about "indigenous people"? Oh wait, you don't. You just made up a sentiment and assigned it to a demographic of varied people that you lumped all together.
_Osage viewed as not worthy_
Not white you mean. Which is how racist white America justified murder, rape and genocide.
To me the movie isn't meant to be a 'Who dunnit'. Is more about the How and Why. I do agree that a better understanding of the Osage perspective, would have helped. That said, Lily Gladstone was , was just wow, wow, wow!!!
I went looking for reviews of this movie and came across this, and it's maybe one of the best / most-well-informed reviews(?) of a movie I've seen on RUclips. I love your thoughtfulness!
Thank you!!
The Osage seemed to be clueless or helpless. I think incompetent is rough but accurate. Where were the Osage Men? I appreciate that Scorsese showed in no uncertain terms who the villains are and how they used American infrastructure to commit these kinds atrocities. However, the portrayal of the Osage was frustratingly passive in their demise.
Word too much focus on the fbi which is considerably less interesting
They we're naive, about people.
That's how I felt watching the film too. I found the film to be racist to the Osage ppl
@Blink. Ernest and Mollie granddaughter, wanted it that way.
They should've went the Tom White, heros journey route.
@@Unsweetened8618 Agreed
Okay. I guess not a lot of people are going to watch the whole video. Totally understandable, it's a rambling rant. The answer to the question is at 21:21
Good post: From the history channel:
_The tribe’s oil wealth attracted hordes of white, marriage-minded suitors. According to McAuliffe, “single Osage women became objects of hot pursuit,” prompting a “flood” of letters to the Osage Agency seeking oil-rich brides, sight unseen. C.T. Plimer of Joplin, Missouri wrote a typical missive: “I…want a good Indian girl for a wife… For every Five Thousand Dollars she is worth, I will give you Twenty Five Dollars. If she is worth 25,000 you would get $125 if I got her.”_
Even the history channel can't bring itself though to state one critical missing fact: *It was ILLEGAL for white WOMEN to marry an Indian.*
And this.....
_Congress passed a law prohibiting the Osage from managing their own money._
The entire structure of American Society was white supremacist...it could no more be navigated by the Osage than concentration camps of NAZI Germany could for the Jews.
I appreciated the review, I understand others having different opinions on it but I watched the entire video and I’ve enjoyed your thoughts for a while now. Thank you
Thank you!
They we're attracted to White Men.
Most Women of other race's today are.
Nothing had changed.
@@Strangerz64 Why don't you talk about how Jews got Palestinians in them camps in Gaza
I applaud your take. Blatantly honest.
At first I really wanted to defend the movie, because I thoroughly enjoyed it and was deeply moved about what it had to say about complacent evil that's so easy to slip into.
But as Alachia went into detail I was like "Wait, the book *gave that context* I thought was missing in the movie? Wait, the book had *that POV* as well? What happened to a whole ⅔ of the story that got chopped? Gimme"
I was looking for someone who felt the same as I did after watching the movie and found your review. One thing to mention is that because who was behind the murders was given away so early in the movie the audience was always ahead of the story for 3 hours. Movie was from the least interesting perspective.
I feel like most of what you explained was pretty clear from the film. I’m not sure why you didn’t like it. It doesn’t spell it out, but it’s all over the film in between the lines.
She can’t help but find something wrong with it. It was a victim mentality rant that came out as constructive criticism, Because not even she understands where it came from.
Emotion had completely taken over by the time she pressed record.
Still watching, but you're talking about how this wasn't a whodunit, but a lot of people already know the Osage story so it would make no sense to do it that way.
We know whodunit, this was a "howcatchem"
I saw the film last week and my opinion on it has softened a little. I think this is actually an example of “too many cooks in the kitchen”.
Scorsese said originally that the movie was going to be from the POV of the BOI agents and it was going to be very unclear who was behind the killings. Then supposedly members of the Osage tribe begged him not to “make the movie about all the white guys”
So Scorsese changed directions but…seemingly only halfway because a big part of our focus is also on the murderers so there’s no “mystery”. I’m also convinced he made it less entertaining on purpose…he supposedly had some guilt about turning a murder case into a movie at all by the end
Also…DiCaprio saying he loved his wife and then not showing that in his actions was *the point*. Ernest did NOT love Molly, but he always swore he did even after attempting to poison her
I don’t like how she said it’s a human thing…. It’s a white thing
I agree I don’t see other group of people who colonized and treated humans so poorly in any other culture
No it’s a human thing. You can see it in many historical conquests.
@@Wrightwrightt000then you need to crack open a book
This is so well done thank you for covering all basis. my Creek, Choctaw, and Cherokee ancestors enslaved their darker family members upon being forced to Oklahoma and abandoned their spouses and children that were deemed too "dark"/black. It's like one generation they went from living as a family unit to separating themselves. It's really about the power dynamics and the propaganda and not race
I don't see it that way at all. Institutional racism based on skin color causes minorities to turn on their darker brethren due to a self hatred of being dark - as an effect of colonization. You can see this phenomenon all across the world. Example: India and its obsession with fair skin. The power dynamic rewards the lighter people. The closer to white, the better off you are. Yes, power is involved, but it is all based on race and the dehumanization of indigenous people.
@@mcl-cp4go100% agreed
Thankyou! A lot of context missing! The relationship between Molly and Ernest was so annoying to watch for 3 hours because it didnt make any sense!
You're being way too nice Alachia. I hated this film. It's obviously set up for Oscar hopes but everything about this story is patronizing and frustrating. You hit it on the head when you described it as a true crime reenactment piece focusing on the criminal. And sadly thats the biggest fault of this film. I haven't read the book but I'm willing to bet cash that Scorsese ommitted and changed a lot!
3hr 26 minutes film solely focused on the dumbest greedy nimwit of all time...I don't get it.
@Alachia 💯 And I'm sorry, I usually like Leonardo's acting choices but the dental prosthetic is absolutely ridiculous. Totally distracting from his acting.
I'm sorry, but your complaint is a Scorsese movie focusses on the criminal?
@@torinju yes. For this type of film and the way it's presented.
@@mephistro You do know that he is famous for his Mafia movies, right? I mean, I get the idea that movies shouldn't focus on the criminals but rather on the victims, but if that is the case, pretty much all Scorsese movies are guilty.
Thanks for having the courage to call out the real problems with this movie. Most reviewers are blinded by the spectacular production values and the star director and actor names. I do respect all the hard work that people put into the film and it is a shame that the script is so wrong.
Thanks!
Thank you for the super thanks! ❤️
Yes this movie made the Osage seem simple , and easy to take advantage of . When in reality yhe entire social structure was fram worked to to whete osage had no power i did like how he showed how much of vultures the settlers were . I thought he couldve really explained the perspective of mollie alot bettwr because i really wasnt sure if she actually knew. What hwr husband was doing , or if she just turned a blind eye . Not the best story telling for the osage . This movie somehow still out white men to the front and narives to the back and yet the story was supoosed to be about them. I do think it was Scoresasses job to highlight these things considering he decided to create the movie . No excuses .
This is great context, and thanks for providing it. "Killers of the Flower Moon" should have been an in-depth miniseries in my opinion, because there is so much story to tell. People complained about the length of the movie, but it should have actually been longer.
Im never surprised at what yt's will do for the power and wealth and have done. This Queen woman is playing it down, there is a clear pattern of a group of people who have done this everywhere same style same pattern. Last time im watching her work truth is truth I wonder who her partner is???? hmmm lol
The most refreshing, honest review of a movie I’ve ever listened to. This channel is a like a pair of jeans in your size at TJ Maxx.
Was it dumb that they kept marrying white guys and they all kept ended up dying and nobody connected the dots when it was going on, sure. But all the movie did was recount what happened in the book that it was based on. I doubt the book even answer that question because everyone involved with this has passed on. So we can't ask Molly why she and her sisters did it. I also don't think that was the point of the movie and it shouldn't be knocked for not answering that. The point of the whole movie was that this incident was horrible and not even talked about really. WHO HERE HONESTLY HAS HEARD ABOUT THIS INCIDENT BEFORE THE BOOK OR MOVIE?, it don't matter why they kept marrying white dudes (it was dumb yes but we have the power of hindsight here). You shouldn't be murdered because you make a foolish mistake and can't see a wolf in sheep's clothing. Love makes you blind. Think we can all agree on that and relate to that.
I think I'm very clear about why there was a very good reason they married white dudes who were clearly only interested in their money.
they needed white dudes to cash out their money because the US government set it up that way so who is the real criminal???
You know a great reviewer when you binge watch the whole review from the first time you see her content and how she logically analyzes each aspect of the movie,
Without even watching it.
Happy to subscribe❤.
❤️❤️❤️
KEEP GOING! I'm your new fan! My would say, "The right people will love you, and the right people will hate you!". Being yourself is the only way to be in our short lives on this planet. Keep Going! Your style is so refreshing.
Thanks!! ❤️
It's best to read David Grann's book because the history underlying the film is extremely complex. I saw the movie with my son and daughter, my son and I had read the book and we had discussed it with his sister and watched documentaries months before the movie.
It's not an easy movie to watch without any context. Even if you just watch documentaries beforehand, it will really help you grasp what a great film Scorsese has made and what great acting De Niro, Di Caprio and Lily Gladstone deliver in it.
I was wondering why so many women was marrying white men.....now it makes sense
I always love your commentary BUT I think you may have been expecting this film to answer questions it was not designed to. If the film tried to answer EVERY question we may have as to the whys, we'd still be in the theater right now. 😂😂😂 I think we have the responsibility to educate ourselves on the unanswered questions and dig into the subject matter by other means than this film.
I TOTALLY agree that Leo's character didn't love his wife at all. I never got the impression this was going to be a murder mystery. Hell... We KNOW who's behind it in one form or another. I think the press conference Scorcese and the cast had at the Cannes Film Festival may shed light on why he told the story the way he did.
If it addresses everything it would be a documentary
No disrespect to the brilliant Mr Scorcese, Ive enjoyed several of his other works.
However,. I do think his storytelling prowess sort of falls short in certain areas of this particular piece of filmmaking. This story really deserves the long form format of a well written and acted streaming series.
The key point she makes with her shortcomings with this film are an inability to view the events unfolding from the perspective of the indigenous themselves.
Unfortunately,..what also oddly is interesting is that it seems like often, .white men seem to really really often be happy to just see other white men being featured prominently at the forefront of a story like this!
Which deals with complex racial issues and white guilt issues,..and then are satisfied and ready to declare a film of this type as a "masterpiece" because their representation and perspective was prominent.
Im certainly not saying a movie has to embrace "white guilt" in order to be and feel "authentic" but the perspective of the victims in all this should have been more of a priority for such a renown filmmaker and one should have to "dig deeper" in order to understand teh basics of a complex story.
one should only have to "educate ourselves" on background issues and other minutia of a particular piece of filmmaking.
Im also not trying to take anything away from teh very very brilliant Martin Scorches,..I just think he might've even bitten off more then even HE can chew with this truly complex and racially sensitive story.
I saw the movie in the theater Friday night. It may be an unpopular opinion but I don't think Scorsese did a good job telling this story. As you state - he glosses over the issue of guardianship, and the cultural issues between Osage women and their white husbands. Instead Scorsese wastes enormous amounts of screen time on pretty shots and long silences while failing to answer these basic questions. He implies that state and local law enforcement was corrupt, and also that jurisdictional issues involving the murder of Indians on the reservation were used as an excuse to not investigate despite clear evidence of foul play. But where were the tribal police? Did the Osage even have tribal police? So many unanswered questions, given that this movie is nearly 3 1/2 hours long it seems inexcusable.
@@MrJeffcoley1 Maybe you should read books and watch documentaries on the subject, instead of expecting every answer from a MOTION PICTURE.
@@youthgonewild Scorsese had 3 1/2 HOURS to tell the story. He didn't do it. Fail.
Lady...you are talking about a situation that had developed over many years for it to be explained in 3.5 hours , and people was already complaining the movie was too long .
The crux of the movie is yet again white people practicing white supremacy in gaining wealth that had nothing to do with fair competition based on merits which they like to preach to others needing to adhere to .
Stop dancing around in calling it for what it is .
Any white people that is offended over the truth don't give a shit about the atrocities committed but only for their image of supposedly being the top of the heap of humanity .
This is what Governor DeSantis and his ilks are concerned about and they will call anything that expose their crimes against humanity as " Woke " , as if being mentally " Asleep " is better . smh
But , I guess ignorance is truly blissful for them .
this is correct the war fought is psychologically first and second by executive power.
I think you are spot on, with your review, and brilliant commentary. Thank you. You really helped me see things from their point of view, in terms of why they were marrying these white men. If I had to go through a stranger, someone considered my money’s guardian, and they benefited from that relationship, it make’s perfect sense to marry a white man, even an obvious gold digger, because he would at least be keeping the wealth in the family, and could become the guardian thus removing the middleman… and hopefully the interest they showed is genuine, and perhaps a romantic connection could continue despite the monetary advantage…
The educational perspective, leading to major cultural differences between the old gen and new gen, also explains the attraction to white men, as more fitting American parters to live out their lives with, and pass on to their children a better chance to be seen by society at large less as a savage (pains me to even use that word, it’s disgusting)…
It’s horrifying what was done to these people to make them dislike their own culture so very much, and very, very sad how effective it was, as well.
Yup. That's why I'm so disappointed in the film. The movie makes it seem like it was just a couple of bad dudes who were the cause of Mollie's suffering... But the point of the book is that it was the entire system. It gave way too much credit to Earnest.
@@Alachia It's soooo obvious Scorsese LOVES giving screen time to DeNiro and epsecially LEO even if it hurts the story.
We as a society are currently training future generations to hate their own country. People refusing to do the pledge at school, divorce is a perfect option if you are bored, and it’s okay to use the government to censor people you don’t like.
I’ve seen a couple reviews at this point and I’m very happy I saw this one. You do a great job breaking down a lot of this. I haven’t seen the movie yet but reading up a bit and seeing videos I thought about the same exact things you’ve explained in this video. So well done, I appreciate the review
What I didn't get is why she wanted to go back to her husband as he was literally standing in jail for the murder of her family members. Is that what really happened in real life? It wasn't until she realized he had tried to kill her also that broke the camels back.. up till then she was cool with it all.
I get why you’re trying to elegantly dance with this topic however there is a distinct difference. Throughout history most of the time it would be people within their own race in conflict etc. The distinction which makes America a little unique is the conflict was race based. They felt only them the settlers who were white were deserving of anything the land/country had to offer and all other people did not deserve to benefit from anything at all because they were beneath them.
And don't apologize for being a realist, Alachia. If the storytelling is greatly flawed, and an affront to what occurred in reality, tear it apart. Your truth is refreshing. Scorsese just aint that deep. If he cared about substance, that movie would have had narration, especially for 3.5 hours.
Preach
Voice overs? Why should a movie need voice overs?
@jasminekaram880 Do you know what narration means ? It provides context or it enhances the existing narrative. It provides a more detailed explanation of the character or the occurrence. Morgan Freemon is the narrator in "The Shawshank Redemption." Ray Liotta is the narrator in "Goodfellas. These are examples of narration.
May I ask of example narration that would make a scene in Flower Moon better?
There are some deeper questions about the relationship america has with native Americans;
1/ American government still hasn’t had that hard conversation yet or (set up the proper channels to let that come about)with the remaining native american communities. What would that conversation achieve for the future of america? would that change anything i don’t know…
2/ Historical presentation of native american people have been one sided and caricatures- not largely contested publicly ( drunks living off in reservations, naive, simple people, not much to offer etc.)
3/ the fast assimilation of native Americans into white culture by force or naturally has created this ‘am 10% or 20% native nationalism’ in america which has nothing to do with Native american cultural identity or progressive heritage values but a hijacking of a diluted cultural component overseen by US government for couple of centuries.
4/ Pocahontas to Molly the great trope that American culture has put forward time and again of the quintessential Native American woman with a white lover is so entrenched in the culture that Scorsese can easily play that angle in this movie without having to justify the whole logic or character development in the film - molly being one dimensional is a classic example of that lethargic character development, she is a easy sidekick to leave outside the spotlight and focus on the main character Ernest and the plot
5/ America is nation built on rivers of blood and european racism - some point in history Americans as a nation will be made to face that reality and seek reconciliation from the past but would this movie do it ??? NO! that time is still to come …
Till this movie came out residents of Oklahoma or US schools never mentioned one bit or knew at large anything about Osage people or their misfortune indeed not their murders!!!
You know the old saying. History is written by the victors. I found it appalling they don't teach this in Oklahoma State History Classes. Is that true? Maybe they have long forgotten it. It was buried for nearly a century.
Im not sure how anyone could think that it was obvious to the osage that William Hale was the person behind these murders. It absolutely is NOT obvious to them. Quite the opposite. And the film makes it obvious to US, but it’s pretty clear that Hale is pretty much respected and deeply appreciated by the entire community.
That’s the whole point of the film. This man played the long game, aimed to gain their trust over many years, to then het rid of them and take their money; and the osage tribe trusted him and opened their land to live peacefully with the white men. I think it’s important to make a distinction between being justifiably trusting, and just plain dumb. I never saw the osage as dumb, even a little bit.
Doctors would supply poison ☠️ and counteract the affects with heroine. Those were dark times.
Hmmmm, a colonialist power constantly squatting on the land of an indigenous population even after the land was promised to be set aside for them…
What modern conflict does this remind me of?
0:26 It definitely felt like it was a captivating and well paced film; I was never bored and didn’t realize that the movie was over 3 hours long till I got out of the movie theater. While I still like the film, your review pointed out legitimate mistakes this movie made that can’t be hand-waved away.
Yeah I agree that the movie should have included more of the Osage backstory into the movie. Though I do think that general audiences have a broad understanding that America has been and continues to be racist. So it's not a stretch to believe most people wouldn't understand that the US government made laws to screw over the Osage
Excellent video and take. I am not surprised that your question was not thoroughly put in the movie. Assimilation is the key to destroy many minority cultures around the world. I'm reading the book now. Thanks so much for your perspective. I learned some things!
I am a black woman. And I could not watch this movie. I appreciate telling this story because I never knew this happened. But I found myself getting mad watching the movie. Then I started ignoring it. I hope someone of indigenous descent can remake this story . I could not understand how all that was happening.
Another Black woman who feels similarly. I'm so happy for the context she has given us!
I’m a black man. I didn’t look away once because it was important to me to see it all. They mentioned the Tulsa massacre more than once. There’s a lot of subtext that requires an understanding of American history that I think was just taken for granted.
To put it shortly: there are several reasons for them marrying white men. The biggest part is survival. They knew the only way to survive was to take the white mans money and get involved in the system because they already know what happened to the black people in Tulsa. Please try again. Without the emotion of it, if possible. The options were to die, or take this fake deal and fake money. They survived.
"I could not understand how all that was happening."
^ I mean this in a supportive way when I say - then - you don't really understand America. You only know the Disney version....and not its dark truths.
this thread is nothing but delusional people
@@hirograveyard8236 the movie portrays the Osage as people that get married because of love, so you are telling that it was better to portrays the Osage as people that did fake marriages?
I get that this is not an Osage story at all and I know that that's not what Scorsese is trying to make. But he made the characters of DiCaprio and De Niro look so "cool" and "edgy" that the film almost became like a gangster film to propagate white supremacy.
well fantastic, exactly, its not believable from a guy like him, normally cellebrating gangsterhood to leave it up to the viewer to carry the moral of a story, when he is not capable of showing what it is that defines their evil. but you said it better, same thought ! thanks
roman herzog should have done that movie
It came across to ne like they just married the white men to get connections and to get mixed children that could potentially have even more opportunities. The only relationship that seemed genuine was Molly and Ernest, because they were the only ones that weren't talking superficially about their relationship. Ernest did fucked up stuffed, but he was shown to be the only husband that actually enjoyed being around his wife, his kids and actually gave a shit about Molly's condition. You don't hold your wife, as she's dying in bed, and not give a shit. It could have been better fleshed out, yes, but Ernest acted differently around his wife than the others did. That was how they differentiated him. These were superficial marriages. It was like reverse assigned marriages lol.
As for the murder mystery aspect....how was it advertised as a murder mystery? Every trailer tells us that it's King in charge of all the killing. I guess the only mystery could be how Ernest was involved, but the trailers constantly imply he's complicit or at least knows who's doing the killing.
That's how it's different from the book. It's not supposed to be a mystery in the movie. Tho, I do wish we would've gotten more of the Osage pov. Maybe through Henry as well and/or an extended flashback of Molly's life until that point. Even the trials could have been a miniseries, itself.
I think the main reason the movie was depicted this way, was to appease to the tribe. The Osage were apart of the writing process and approved the final cut, I believe.
What about Ernest giving Molly, " Poison" without her consent everyday to slow her down from investigating? What kind of special love is that?
they married white dudes to cash out their own money from the US government that’s what the movie shows
In what scene did it ever show that?
@@Alachia the scenes when molly goes to the white official appointed by US government to give her own money based on her requests - in the end when she wants to go to washington the same white dude - government appointee denies her request to give her money because he was not convinced by her genuine reasonings - so when you mention osage people were very wealthy, well they were not given control over their finances by the US government!!! so criminality runs deep in American history….
He cared about her by poisoning her insulin ?!!
This movie was more of a Columbo-style narrative. Its a "Howcatchem" instead of a "Whodunnit."
I thought the movie was good but hard to watch and still suffers a bit from having Euro influences rather than Native Americans telling their story from the inside out.
Yeah.. howcatchem... I like that!
Reminds me of the John Woo FILM about WW2 Native American code talkers starring Nic Cage, who was the main focus with the actual code talkers practically being background characters in a film titled about them.
I love your reviews queen ❤
Aww. Thank you! ♥️
Sorry. Euro-colonialism decimated the indigenous by hook and crook. The same dynamic is at play in Gaza. Internecine Native wars paled in comparison to the brutality committed by 'the settlers.' That said, Killers of the Flower Moon tried to expose the systemic evil used to poison and kill the Osage Nation for profit. Hale and Burkhart looked like shit, so on this point, the movie succeeded. I agree that the Osage perspective should've been front and center, but this film wasn't made for the Osage Nation. It was made specifically for the American public and exposed the systemic white supremacy against the indigenous.
think so too, i look at those roasted bodies and the dead kid, hear someone scream in anger and sadness..and almost think"but the mainstreammedia told me that this doesnt matter!?"
I think the film is trying to make you research the story afterward. it is not a documentary, and it can't be.
like the last video you have said, a lot of people was asking this questions, and that is the point. the point is make people ask question and research it. the movie used the very designed ending to not giving satisfaction of the story, it is meant to tell people things are recorded, you need to go read them.
I never know about this story because 1.I don't live in america, 2. they don't teach this in school.
after I watched the movie, I never thought "how dare the movie don't tell me everything i want?"
Because I know it is a movie and I start to read more about the story and the history.
I think the movie did what it suppose to do.
Not by telling you everything you need to learn but build your interest to go learn things.
A film is an art form of telling story, not educating people about history.
After I see WW2 movie about Japanese people mass murder Chinese, I don't go ask "why the movie didn't tell people why so few Japanese solider can kill some many Chinese civilians, why didn't they fight back?"
That will be a very dumb question to ask out loud.
If people have questions and care about the answers, they should go do their own research, or watch the videos like this you just made to explain it. movies are not here to help comforting people's ignorance.
whoever asked this type of questions out loud is either very simple or just don't care about finding things themselves.
If there is a movie about DV, should they spend sometime to explain why the victims stay with their abuser?
Movies are not public education tools, they are story telling tools that can help public educations.
I bet you money this movie made many people start to research this part of history.
at least all the people who actually care about the truth.
people who ask a question in a RUclips comment section and think that is research does not care about the questions they asked to begin with. Anyone who would care about the question would have do their own research.
when do we start to think ignorance is some type of honesty? when do we start to think we should help people who jump to victim blaming understand why they are wrong?
If someone don't know something, go find it out, don't show ignorance and think a movie owe people answers.
Also, if someone see victims and first reaction is asking why the victims become victims, that should ring some alarm,s people who do that should ask themselves why that is the first thought, why they didn't bother to find that out instead of asking youtube sections.
Victim blaming should never be the first thought of anyone.
Excellent framing - why did these women keep on doing this self-destructive stuff? A work of fiction doesn't have to provide answers. But good art will haunt you with answers.
Alachia - I think this was one of your best videos ever... because it was just entirely your view, and your understanding. I'll recap my situation - I'm a white (50+ yo) Australian male, and not only have I not seen the movie, I've also no personal connection to the Osage. And that should bracket my comment.
There's a couple of things that came to my mind in listening to your essay...firstly, I as someone who has married a Japanese immigrant (into Australia), I 'think' I have gained an appreciation of the difference between (myopic) progressive/multiculturalism that we bestow upon ourselves as a nation, and the often very different experiences of people trying to navigate different worlds. We often don't see the struggles of others, and don't value their voices. The Osage were effectively immigrants in their own country - just powerfully vulnerable ones. I constantly see the tension between what Australia as a whole wants to be, and what we are. Not being down on Australia - it's just that all peoples around the world need to consider differences, and also to respect those differences. Having said that - we're all tenants of our own biases and history.
The whole story also reminds me of my time in South Korea - where historical families who had ties to the DMZ were being targeted for marriage because of the tax benefits (for South Koreans) that could bring... this is happening today. I never knew the DMZ was actually a very cultivated land, because we are told it's a wasteland... but we likewise don't understand that historical chance can often create imbalance that others seek to exploit. And yet, it is set against a totally unique and weird context.
The other personal connection I have is that Australia just voted overwhelmingly to deny indigenous people a (non-enforcable) voice to our Australian parliament in our recent referendum... because of a range of 'excuses' over this that or the other... without really understanding that what we were doing was imposing OUR (the 'new Australian' view) on the original people. It's not just a white-Australia thing, it was always a feeling of unfairness that someone else would get something that we didn't. So many new migrants into Australia voted against the referendum because they felt they would be disadvantaged further. In fact the divide was often seen along 'wealth' lines. People don't tend to see the humanity, when they feel their rights are at risk.
It's not an easy subject, and there are many counter-arguments. However I really applaud you for putting your own view down - I wish I had my own YT voice to do likewise, rather than just commenting on the sidelines. Sorry for clogging your comment space with so much verbage. Just a big kudos to you. We need more voices to actually raise questions - as a person, not as a commercial position. For that reason, I don't think that Scorsese actually has a good understanding of what this story was about... I don't see a lot of cultural empathy from him as a director (perhaps my bias). At least, the movie might initiate a lot of these discussions.
Thank you for sharing that with me. One question, what does DMZ mean?
@@Alachia sorry - it's often easy to think everyone knows acronyms (a curse of the modern age). DMZ = De Militarized Zone... it's the agreed gap between North and South Korea. For many people who haven't been there - it has the image of being a mine-field wasteland - but in reality it's a fertile part of the countries - just bookended with bad PR (except for tourists) and a national symbol of suffering and wrong... But the reality is that there's been families that have tilled the land and lived their lives for 60-70 years since the war in this 'no-mans-land'. It's a weird in-between world, like the world 'before colonisation' and 'after colonisation'. It feels like it should be black and white (like why do people do this to themselves), but it often isn't ... because of history, inherited shame, rewards, hopes/dreams, and promises of a different future. And also the ever-present mis-information. Even now people live through denial because society enables it.
As an example, it is now an economic lever, to provide those families (and the people that marry into it) tax benefits in the South. Or at least that's what I learned talking to a lot of South Koreans in the know.
@@Alachia PS - I really don't think people need to read my 'verbose' self-indulgent comments. I tend to only get into commenting when I'm inspired or challenged. Don't sweat having to respond, but at least thank you for asking the question. 🙂
That's very interesting. I didn't realize this. I am interested in learning more about it and will look into it. Thanks again for sharing all of this with me!
@@Alachia it's an observation I made thinking about your question - how could this happen, and it immediately made me think of how these artificial societal frameworks happen even today all over the place. Having said that - I also took a step back and realised that I'd heard this story from a very limited number of people... and it makes me think how much we trust what people tell us. But I also believe that this is exactly how it happens, because it suits the community/government to do something, so they don't dis-encourage people do something (because it's beneficial). Whether they actively encourage is a different thing - but human nature being what it is, we can bet someone will seek benefit from any situation.
Having said that - the question needs to be asked - what did those communities gain, and what other fate did they avoid? History is complex.
I really respect this take. I had thought it myself. I really didn't understand why the women were attracted to these white men. But you explained it really well and it definitely makes sense now.
I only watched the movie today, so my thoughts are still pretty raw. But this is currently what I think, and I'm curious to hear other thoughts. Martin Scoresese obviously isn't Osage and so I don't think he can tell the story from that perspective and do it justice. I think it would require someone from the Osage community, or at least a native director to really do it justice. This would be a much lower budget movie that wouldn't get anywhere near enough attention. So given that he's not, this is probably the best perspective he could give whilst also maintaining authentic storytelling.
When researching I found out that it was originally going to be told from the perspective of the FBI. Luckily, the feedback (which I understand to be from Osage consultants) was that this would come across as another white saviour story. So at least what we got is much better than that.
The other thing is, the vast majority of the audience aren't Native American. There was something about telling the story from Ernest's perspective that made me feel like it was a mirror to the audience. People convince themselves that they care, but their actions (or inaction) reveal their complicity.
I don't want to come across as an apologist. I do agree there's much more that wasn't told. I think answering all the questions would require a different medium like a documentary. I think this does a good job of highlighting an injustice, and hopefully peaks enough interest that people do their own research. Coming from the UK, I was aware of some of the overt atrocities that were done to Native Americans, but was much less aware of some of these more covert acts of violence.
I loved the movie. Haven't read the book yet.
At first I was a little put off about your criticism of the film. Your research and commentary makes sense. I wish they had included that information. Thanks 💯
How many crybabies there are here, Scorsese makes a great film showing the horrors about the Osage people which motivated many people to research on the subject and buy the book, mission accomplished, but they want everything explained and pre-digested, make their own film or documentary if this film hurts them so much, now they pretend to know more than the director about how to tell the story, professional haters who are offended by everything
This film is shown the true nature of American culture still going on around the world 💔🇵🇸
I understand the difference between personally enjoying a movie and appreciating the quality of a movie. I'm able to separate those things. I give this move a C+ for a different reason. I wanted to cry for the events depicted. I'm an easy crier. I've cried at a lot of movies. This movie didn't have the heart centeredness I wanted. I wish Spielberg would have written/directed this one. He knows how to make people cry. They just didn't tell the story that I wanted told. All that being said, I give this movie an A+ for the quality of it.
Great analysis! I do wish the movie would have tackled the points you made in this video.
how can a historical movie that's so long lack so much context
Great historical insight Ms. Queen. I think Scorsese did an excellent job constructing this film and story from a certain pov. I left the theater loving this movie, so much so that i just saw it for a second time in the theatre, however I had a lot of issues with the story and love how you answered my questions. Subscribed. Can’t wait to check out your analysis of other films. :)
thank you!
Two thumbs up for this commentary. I enjoyed the movie, but it was obvious there was a lot of context missing. Until your video I also wondered "why" and now it makes so much more sense.
I understand Scorcese's desire to please the Osage people, but changing the narrative meant a lot was left out which ultimately led to a much more shallow story. I think he should've stayed true to his original vision.
If you take a look at American History the motivations might be made clearer. The movie is a perfect example of how racism and greed can combine to cause pain and destruction among those not in the Dominant society. Also, you saw a brief glimpse of how the dominant society often resorts to violence. You may not have recognized it but the is a glimpse of the TULSA OKLAHOMA Massacre on Black Wall Street. I was happy that Martin included that. It was in the same time period.. and the same State. It's like what hapened in Rosewood Florida and Wilmington North Carolina. Also... aside from the pillowtalk in this film, it's mostly historicaly accurate. As much as any Hollywood picture usually is. I also think the picture is more of a Historical Crime drama than it is a who done it murder mystery. I think you have asked some good questions perhaps more time and study will reveal the answers to you, of course that may become more difficult in the light of the attempt to get rid or real history and replace it with more "feel good" material. The good lessons of history are also often painful.
I actually do know the answers to my question which I explore in my history ramble. I think what I find the most frustrating shit historical crime drama like these is that they make it seem like people back then were just bad.. that these were isolated evil men who did bad things. But they were part of a system that still remains to this day... And just making a few bad men "the problem" is trivializing the scope of the crime
Excellent excellent points!!! I agree with you on the point you make about systematic racism. There's not a lot about WHY the Osage people were even forced to be on that land. They were smart enough to buy...rather than be forced onto a reservation they were lucky to be on that land, unlike many of the other tribes. Unfortunately as often happens, when the dominant society found out it was like Welles' WAR OF THE WORLDS.."They regarded this Earth with envious eyes and slowly and surely drew their plans against us..."
They were zaddy worshiping burn the cape divestors
Very good breakdown to explain the “why’s” of the film. I read the book before watching the movie and wondered why Scorsese decided to tell the story from the beginning exposing who were behind the murders. Almost as if to make the murders the entertaining part.
I had a huge problem with that and the movie could have been much better if the first half was told from the perspective of the Osage who had no idea of the machinations their “friends” were capable of.
I learned even more through your breakdown.
Are you sure that your dislike of the evil people in this film has not caused you to dislike the film itself??? Knowing this was by Scorsese, did you really think this movie would be about anything but the evil people do and how they justify it to themselves? This artistic approach can be beneficial to an audience, even though it doesn't cover ALL relevant issues to this historical event.
I didn’t watch any trailers and loved the film didn’t even think it was meant to be a murder mystery film but that’s fair when that’s your expectations via the trailers
The first thing I noticed in the movie is that the Osaka people didn't look well. It was a sickness in the air and on their faces.
Wowcast fan from way back in the day I love hearing you talk about anything.
Wow4life baby! Lol
As a black Latina I asked myself the same question. Why did they keep marrying these loser white guys? Weren’t they suspicious of their motives? I think Marty was either blind to the choices women are forced to make based on societal pressures or he was afraid that if he shone a light on them and did wrongly he would feel the backlash. There were three places where it was subtly placed. When Lizzie Q berated her daughters for their choices in partners. When Mollie remarked on what Ernest’s skin looked like next to hers. And when she told her sisters she was attracted to his blue eyes.
They laid with dogs, and got fleas, their fawning over whiteness got them what they deserved
Thank you for this!! I was really getting frustrated with why these Osage women kept marrying white men with everything that was going on. Surely there had been enough history by the 1920s for them to know not to be so trusting. This explains a lot and as long as that movie was, should have been included.
I never fully believed the romance in this film. I get Ernest's love for Molly, despite the awful things he did, but I never get what Molly sees in the him. It just happens to due to plot. The film kind of just shows the Osage woman having the hots for white guys despite all the reasons they shouldn't.
One scene that puzzled me when watching the film in theaters is when the Osage leaders gather together to discuss the murders and how the white man diluted their beliefs and made them vulnerable and then he hands over the speech to Hale, the obviously suspicious white guy. My first thought was, so we aren't going to start looking into him more? He probably would have been my first suspect. Showing more background with the Osage with Hale and why they trusted him would have helped.
The film wasn't awful but just disappointingly flawed, because you know it could be better. Especially given the source material and the long runtime. We can dedicate a scene to Robert De Niro spanking Leonardo DeCaprio with a paddle, but we couldn't expand upon on the setting and relationships between Osage, White Settlers, and the FBI?
I love the point you bring up about the paddle. exactly. It would have been more useful for them to have shown the history he had with the Osage and how he spent decades integrating himself with their community. He was never an obvious suspect for them for a long time.
I read the story and saw the movie and you are absolutely right. I wondered why the Osage women married white men. Your explanation was very enlightening.
Thank you so much this answered so many questions. The movie was 3 hours they could’ve easily followed the books’ chapters
I appreciate the points you made with this video.
The answer to your question was touched on in the movie. But it wasn’t really hammered home in the movie. There was a scene where Molly went and was asking for money and was getting told no. Or was being questioned about the expensive meat she was buying. But they didn’t clearly connect the dots in the film.
Also I feel that this movie is more of a crime drama and not a murder mystery. But I think they definitely should have spent more time with how the native people felt about what was going on in the community. They should have focused more on the community in some places.
But I felt that the movie was trying to be more about showing how “normal” it was for people to plot on others and be two faced to commit crimes, and how conplicebt people are.
But I felt they wanted to just lay bare how these people interacted with other criminals.
Whats also funny is I think this is a “love” story, but it’s not a love between people, but what a love of money will lead too.
But I agree that they could have added more elements from the book and I like the comparison between the source material to the movie.
But I appreciate your perspective on this movie
Thanks for giving us the background. Great review....
The Scorsese approach of “humanizing” the horrific criminal is not appropriate for this story. This is a real history with real people and a genocide that many of us are still experiencing today. It is very triggering for the film to take this approach especially after publicizing the massive script rewrite they really made it seem like it would be an Osage story. Considering the MMIW epidemic and the context of historical genocide the last thing we needed was a “complicated” abuser who murders Native women for money. I also hated the dances with oil scene like wth even was that. Mollie’s story was the only one that was really told and it was twisted into a demented love story. 99% of the Osages on screen were just there to get murdered. It was disappointing.
In 2020 an attempt to steal my inheritance claimed that I was unfit to inherit. I’m a retired professional who has owned her own home since 1984, earned two degrees and taught without any bad evaluations for over 20 years. I had to get a lawyer, accused is guilty.
The book is good, skipped the film.
You are SO GOOD at communicating your thoughts. I loved this spoiler review/rant lol.
Watched it all. I appreciate your reviews. 🙂
I think honest reviews are rare nowadays since Siskel & Ebert passed on. Their thumbs up or down system wasn't meant to discourage anyone from seeing any movie as they loved movies, but it did begin to influence ticket sales as they became more well known. I don't think movie studios want anything like their show on TV again.
Siskel and Ebert did have enormous influence. Crazy to think two dudes could decide the tide of a box office!
Ebert had a few whiffs. 😂 They’re funny to read
Appreciate your insight. I like the movie for what little it does. *The book sounds better.*
For better or worse, the movie is 100% about answering the question, "how can a normal white guy be acclimatized into genocide, even betraying his own loved ones for the cause?"
Ernest's POV is the POV of the vast majority of the white audience that'll be watching this. (Per the movie) he didn't start it, he didn't harbor any particular ill will, just a simple man going off what was handed to him; "it's not my fault this is the norm".
I wouldn't concoct a double-life, or conspire to murder, or torch someone's house. But I absolutely would bend over backwards to defend someone I trust, and stay silent about the shit they ask me to do. Yeah, in the right circumstance, some version of me could easily slip into being an Ernest. And that scares the shit out of me.
I roll my eyes at racist stereotypes of white hillbillies shooting guns in the air and obsessing over how they can beat down the black guy with the boys. That shit ain't me, and it never has been.
But cowardice and denial, that is real to me. This movie showed me where I _would_ be in this situation.
All that being said, the book sounds 3 times better.
Much as I appreciate the white guilt representation done right, all my favorite scenes are the scenes with Mollie and the fam. Could've used a whole 90 minutes of just that.
The movie's 200 minutes long; they could have showed the Osage perspective AND have the Ernest character as well. *They had the runtime.*
You hit the nail on the head why this film was such a disappointment, wasn't necessarily the weak performances, the lack lustre script or the lack of suspense. It's that the movie does not do a good job of depicting the situation and the conditions the Osages had to live in nor did the film scratch the tip of the iceberg how the killings were possible under a corrupt system, government officials that kept ignoring the problem and the involvement of several oil barons and other oligarchs.
Thank you for taking the time to explain, it was so helpful and I agree, what a wasted opportunity to tell the story of the Osage.
I'll make distinction here. In regard to the resources of the planet, there are two kinds of people. People of Nature and people of Fiction. People of Nature rightly believe that the sun, the moon, the stars, anything of nature, AND THE LAND cannot be 'owned.' It was here before you were born, it will be still be here after you die. So how can you 'own' it? That's technically true. But one consequence of that is that when two tribes of Nature arrive at a scarce resource at the same time (a watering hole, for example), they more often than not are going to fight over it and kill each other over it, because it is human nature and because "needs must when the Devil drives.' The Indians had war parties long before the white men even came over. That is why the People of Fiction developed the legal fiction that one can 'own' land. If one guy is recognized to 'own' this piece of land and the other guy is recognized to 'own' that piece of land, then its clear who was the right to use certain pieces of land and who doesn't. No fighting all the time. (or a least a lot less fighting). The problem the people of fiction then have is that parents want their children to make out better they did. And so the prophet rages "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth Isaiah 5:8-12 (KJV) I.e., wealthy land owners marry only wealthy landowners until you get something like Europe at the beginning of the Age of Exploration, where every scrap of European land was owned by some Duke, or Count, or King. It was literally land office business when the people of nature were discovered. And the thing is, the people of fiction were not all white people. And if you play a game of Sid Meier's Civilization, you find out that the Civ that usually wins is the one that lives closest to the best resources. Because that's how technology is acquired. That happened to be true of the Europeans. Shear dumb luck. And now we're got the infamous 1%. Owners of almost everything. All because parents love their children.
I respect your view but had the book been turned into a miniseries vs a film then yes, your approach would have worked.