Killers of the Flower Moon: Inappropriately Humane
Killers of the Flower Moon Review
Star Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, William Bellevue, Tatanka Means, and Cara JAde Mayers
Music Composed by Robbie Robertson
Edited by Thelma Schoonmaker
Written by Eric Roth and Martin Scorsese
Directed by Martin Scorsese
At times, we are left wondering if being Human is a blessing or a curse…
We tend to be a sect of animals, who seem to be proud and happy to be on the top of the food chain. We try to portray ourselves as the supreme so much so that, we want to overpower fellow Human Beings by stating that the creator has created some of us from his head, and arms while some from feet. We want to be on top of everything so much that we don’t even understand the crimes and sins we commit by killing the trust and essence of being Human altogether. Even fearful animals like carnivores turn into man-eaters and hunt when they are hungry or cornered. But as Humans, shamefully, we tend to hunt more when our bellies are full and pockets and bank accounts are glowing with balances. We just end up spreading hatred so much that one day, even domesticated and loving, ever trusting Dogs, would grow into Man-hunters. Some day, that will be a glaring truth that smiles in our condescending faces.
A destroyer’s ambition is endless, and he will not stop until he has obliterated all that he sees…
The book Killers of the Flower Moon reveals the tragic events that we often ignore. Instead of trying to understand and prevent the causes of these deaths, we get fascinated by the mystery and play detective. This requires more self-awareness and introspection on our shortcomings and how to overcome them. It is easier to blame someone for a crime than to find a solution. We face epidemics, pandemics, and natural disasters, but we never learn that “unity comes from love, not destruction”. We only act humanely when we are in trouble, but we fail to do so beforehand.
The only way you can completely kill a person is by killing their trust.
The story of Karna and Kunti is the scariest one I have ever heard. Imagine facing your mother and hearing her beg you not to kill your siblings. Imagine confessing to your brother that you murdered his son, as part of a group of schemers. These incidents scar me so much that I hope to never be part of such times. Now, Imagine your uncle telling you to kill your wife slowly for her property. Krishna was both a hero and a villain because he chose a side and did not stop the conflict. What can you do if one side refuses to change? Ernest Burkhart was so greedy that he always wanted more money, without realizing the consequences of his actions.
When we see a trusting person as a weak and incompetent person, we end up dying under their wrath. Because even we have to trust someone to break this weak and trusting person and overpower them. All I wish Martin Scorsese had shown more interest in telling the story from the perspective of the weak person. The one who was suffocated by the wolves of greed and power. If she (Mollie Kile) had been the focus of the narrative, the technical brilliance would have made the story more emotional. It would have taught us to never be distrustful. When you read Mahabharata from different angles, your interpretation of the story changes. For Karna and Kunti, Mahabharata was a nightmare, while for Arjuna, it was a victory over miscreants. Martin Scorsese should have taken Kunti’s point of view, instead of Duryodhana and Shakuni’s. William Hale was like Shakuni and Ernest was like Duryodhana.
Even trusting a criminal with good intent is better than a well-wisher with bad intent..
Martin Scorsese saw this story as a failure of the Osage community to save their integrity, as the virtues of money blinded them from the curses of friendship. Just like how Shakuni wanted to destroy a complete kingdom for his sister and father, and became a friend of Duryodhana. Scorsese wanted to show us how Osage and indigenous communities have decided to end their nomad lifestyle by settling as ranchers. The land ownership that they claim has legitimacy and Scorsese masterfully maintained POVs. See the kind of camera composition that Scorsese composed whenever William Hale tried to impose his will. He doesn’t ask people to call him King, but he also behaves like one. He stands like a King, almost talking to his pupil when he is talking to Mollie’s sister. Contrastingly, he does the same almost like Hale is accepting Ernest as his knight. Scorsese also came up with major POV shots with respect to character intentions and introductions. You can see how the camera follows Leonardo when he is walking through the cattle and ranch to meet his uncle, “The King”. See, the subtle changes in Ernest’s contemplation of calling his uncle, Sir and King. There is a lot of play that these two characters have and actors have embodied those characters.
You can see subtle changes from overhead shots to aerial shots to close-ups to extremes. From Leo’s POV, the camera is always unsettled and running. He is not a settled person either, as seen from others’ eyes. There is an eerie feeling whenever he and De Niro enter the shot. Scorsese proves he is a master of storytelling by cutting between long shots and establishing shots. The only problem is his choice to not continue with the voice-overs. We don’t get the thematic continuity of people narrating their stories from different perspectives, like how he started. It would have been great if he had followed that theme. Leonardo DiCaprio has been playing roles that we either like or dislike. But here, he makes a person so human that we understand how easy it is for him to follow in the shadows of a master who is untrustworthy. Lily Gladstone did her best in the scenes she was given. Robert De Niro for me is the hero of the film. Whenever he comes on the screen, he steals the show. Being a villain, he still makes you see the blinding ambition behind his actions. The story from the Osage and Mollie’s POV would have helped us understand why this community accepted the “incompetent” label on them and also wanted these white people’s friendship when they could see them as not “friends” but “freeloaders”. The things that Martin Scorsese told with shots at some places are lost as he progresses, being almost obsessed with Leo’s character and his self-realization of how demonic he is becoming. It is almost like the Devil asking a human to follow his cult while the human in him is trying to fight it. It made Duryodhana almost go on the path of Karna but he missed Kunti’s POV, overall.
We remember the hurt, not the incident.
The story keeps evolving as we narrate to others. We tend to become more emotional as we remember the hurt. Killers of the Flower Moon could have been about that hurt had Scorsese believed in telling about that hurt rather than depending on stars to revive interest in the story he wanted to tell. Still, he never made us feel the weight of the runtime. He made us ache and carve for more. I never indulged myself in learning more about a real-life story after watching a movie like this. Chola history entangled me into it after watching PS1 and reading the book. But Killers made me delve into the Osage Nation and learn about their plight. While Martin achieved his goal of bringing the incident to light, he could have been the exterminator of the wolves by making us more emotionally involved in the story as there is a learning about mistrust. It almost felt like asking to gain a lesson from a book half-torn.
Theatrical Trailer:
Recent Comments