|
smug n stuff posted:Ending felt a little too cute to me. Yeah you can say “this is bad” but at the end of the day you still made the dang movie with De Niro joking about how you’re shooting people in the front not the back and playing it for laughs. Good movie I thought but the ending felt like, defensive in a way that put me off. This is just the "Scorsese is glamorising Jordan Belfort/Henry Hill/Travis Bickle!" argument, how the gently caress are people still presenting this as a serious argument in tyool 2023
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Cause this is another "Crime pays until it doesn't but the system is broken so it'll be fine" movie. Except instead of being about the Lufthansa heist or stock market manipulation, this is a movie about Native Americans being murdered by white men who embedded themselves in their communities/families for their money.
live with fruit fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Oct 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 07:22
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:Cause this is another "Crime pays until it doesn't but the system is broken so it'll be fine" movie. Except instead of being about the Lufthansa heist or stock market manipulation, this is a movie about Native Americans being murdered by white men who embedded themselves in their communities/families for their money. what movie did you watch where it said the system was OK and that the white people in this film were cool and good, actually? because the version I saw literally had the filmmaker condemning the lack of public knowledge of a massive racially motivated genocidal act on behalf of white America to the point that there was a really obvious ADR line during the bombing that screams "This is exactly like Tulsa!" to hammer home the point that the Osage people have been sidelined by the system Protagonists are not necessarily heroic, depiction is not endorsement. Scorsese has had a career of character studies of terrible people and the horror of their 'victories' - the hollowness and paranoia of Hill, the horror of Belfort restarting the cycle of "sales", the celebrated psychopathy of Bickle - they're not happy endings. They are explicitly not saying "wow cool guys!", as the films use visual language to present the characters as menaces. It's almost the wilfully dense level of "Tyler durden is right" reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 08:06
|
|
|
If you’re meeting gentle criticism about imperfect representation with “ACTUALLY how the gently caress did you not get it” you ought to be rethinking the way you live your life. I don’t even mean this sarcastically. Oppression is obviously a very multi-dimensional topic and it’s quite likely that well-meaning, even-handed attempts to do it right don’t succeed entirely — or that subjectively it just doesn’t work for everyone. How is your first response to shields up and stan the auteur? Why would you think condescending to them and insulting them is an appropriate thing to do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 08:25
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:The end bit with Scorsese himself reading Molly's obituary rang very hollow considering that he stuck her as a character in bed for the last hour and a half of the movie. Choosing to follow DiCaprio and DeNiro instead of the actual Osage characters was a head-scratching decision. Sadly, I have to agree. The film went off the rails for me a bit in the final third, with everything following the arrival of the BOI feeling like it belongs in a very different film that's significantly less interested in the Osage. There was obviously a great deal of care put into bringing the Osage into focus early on, and for that to just fall away so dramatically towards the end is kind of baffling, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 08:28
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:If you’re meeting gentle criticism about imperfect representation with “ACTUALLY how the gently caress did you not get it” you ought to be rethinking the way you live your life. I don’t even mean this sarcastically. Oppression is obviously a very multi-dimensional topic and it’s quite likely that well-meaning, even-handed attempts to do it right don’t succeed entirely — or that subjectively it just doesn’t work for everyone. How is your first response to shields up and stan the auteur? Why would you think condescending to them and insulting them is an appropriate thing to do? Because this year with Barbie and Oppenheimer and other large releases have shown that people are really, really unable to understand the way that films represent meaning and to hear the same poo poo about Scorsese's presentation of unsavoury characters attempt to be relitigated again is tiiiiiiresome at best and reheated troll level bullshit at worst. Discussion of a filmmakers past work relevant to the topic at hand is definitely stanning though. Gottim, slay queen, I'll take the notes on posting decorum from the poster telling me to re-evaluate my life now!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 08:49
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:The end bit with Scorsese himself reading Molly's obituary rang very hollow considering that he stuck her as a character in bed for the last hour and a half of the movie. Choosing to follow DiCaprio and DeNiro instead of the actual Osage characters was a head-scratching decision. she is not sidelined. she’s the beating heart of the story
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 09:03
|
|
|
Through the first part of the movie, I came to the conclusions that if Ernest and Hale were not crucified and flayed alive by the end I would personally piss on their graves; and also that they would likely get away with it. Then the movie zigs into that! We get long, crawling scenes where they all but bash their heads against the wall as they slowly realize they're screwed. I was very nearly satisfied. And then it zags away in heartbreaking fashion into the radio play. They were freed. They both got away with it and were deeply punished. How can that be? The Osage say that 20 years prior they would have found and killed them. But the truth is that any revenge would never be enough. But Mollie lived on. The last shot of a ceremony with some participants in seemingly modern clothing shows that the Osage people live on, too. Ernest and Hale didn't get away with it nor were they harshly punished. It's even worse: they failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 10:38
|
|
|
Haven’t seen it yet but I’m enjoying the conversation Scorsese has with his audience Every time he does a movie about a terrible guy the audience goes “that guy was cool” and Scorsese scratches his head and the next movie will make it more clear that they’re terrible and audiences will still say “that guy was cool” Even Wolf of Wall Street was too subtle for these people so he made the protagonist of The Irishman end up abandoned by his daughter in a retirement home, making GBS threads his pants Looking forward to how he tops that
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 11:25
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:The end bit with Scorsese himself reading Molly's obituary rang very hollow considering that he stuck her as a character in bed for the last hour and a half of the movie. He didn't because it's what really happened during that period of time depicted I agree completely with I Butthole, and with Yun right above too. Staggeringly depressing how low media literacy has sunk these days, to the point even true stories have to immediately be declared too cynical and could they maybe possibly be lightened up for a different story?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 11:52
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:This is just the "Scorsese is glamorising Jordan Belfort/Henry Hill/Travis Bickle!" argument, how the gently caress are people still presenting this as a serious argument in tyool 2023 So I’ve seen very few Scorsese movies, and none of his Important one (only Hugo and Shutter Island lmao—not for any reason, just haven’t gotten around to others, I only Got Into Movies fairly recently), so apologies if I’m retreading well-worn ground, that’s my bad. But here’s where I’m coming from: My reading of the epilogue was the film’s director looking us in the eye and saying that true crime fiction is morally deranged—it packages up real people’s lives, real people’s tragedy, and turns it into a few hours of entertainment, with special effects, funny voices, and a few laugh lines. And I think that’s all true and good to say. But the fact that I’d just finished watching one of the most entertaining pieces of true crime fiction of all time made that feel a little hollow—trying to have its cake and eat it, I guess. I’m very open to other readings—again, I don’t know much Scorsese. That’s just what I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 12:42
|
|
|
I think that an important context for the ending is that that, too, was based in history. The FBI cooperated with radio producers to have an early true crime radio show (sponsored by Lucky Strike) where the brave feds always caught the villain, painting themselves as heroes. These murders were dramatized as part of that, complete with portraying the FBI as swooping in to save the day. I thought it was great. If you have the time to commit to see it in theaters, I think it's worth it, but given the length I wouldn't begrudge someone who felt that they needed to wait until they could give themselves a breather.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 14:01
|
|
|
Ending: the radio show is immediately followed up by the real osage people performing a dance, celebrating their culture. I guess I find it a bit cynical to say the ending to trying to shame us for enjoying the film. I see it more as a reminder that their history and culture is real despite being nearly forgotten (like Tulsa as another mentioned). So go read more about them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 14:10
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:what movie did you watch where it said the system was OK and that the white people in this film were cool and good, actually? because the version I saw literally had the filmmaker condemning the lack of public knowledge of a massive racially motivated genocidal act on behalf of white America to the point that there was a really obvious ADR line during the bombing that screams "This is exactly like Tulsa!" to hammer home the point that the Osage people have been sidelined by the system I think he meant "its fine" as "nothing deservedly bad will happen to the protagonists despite the immense evil they caused". This is also true of Goodfellas, Wolfing Wall Street, etc. Like yeah of course Scorsese and you, the morally responsible viewer, think these guys are huge pieces of poo poo who should be flayed, but society didn't care enough so even when they were caught they mostly got away with it. ...or he could have been saying he personally thought all these protagonists are cools and good and he wants to be them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
I don't even know how you could read what I said as meaning that they were cool, or that the system was OK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Maybe he thought you were a redditor that wandered into this dead gay forum to tell everyone about your personal heroes Jordan Belfort, Tony Soprano, Patrick Bateman, Tony Montana and the Joker
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
I don't anticipate a lot of college students putting posters of Ernest Burkhart up in their dorm rooms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Scorsese made this in close cooperation with the Osage people, portrays them respectfully and in a way that they approve of, and Gladstone herself has said on a few occasions now that if this film was directed by an Osage it wouldn’t have even gotten made, let alone for $200 million dollars and a four hour runtime. How much more social responsibility should Scorsese assume? This simple-math thinking of “people should only be making movies about their own ancestors” would lead to less indigenous stories being told, not more, and disrespects the word of the Osage themselves when they say “KotFM is good, please check it out, thank you Mr. Scorsese for working with us.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
This movie isn't disrespectful to the Osage people but it doesn't tell their story either. This is another Scorsese movie about a gang of self-destructive idiots not getting away with their crimes, down to a montage of collaborators getting taken care of. For all the talk about Tulsa in this movie, it'd be like making a movie about the bombing of Black Wall Street from the perspective of the white supremacists who did it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
The Zone of Interest is gonna give you a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
I wish he had framed the film from the Osage perspective. Rather than knowing who the perpetrators were from the beginning, it would have played more sinisterly and true to life from their perspective. Reading blood meridian, and knowing what I know about my state's history, I would say that this film sanitized a lot of the violence that was common. The ku Klux Klan is introduced as a major force, but we never see what their presence does to the Osage. Genocide is not just white murdering indigenous people, but it includes psychological, emotional and cultural destruction. I don't think that Scorsese did a very good job showing that. I'll add to that that white folks love to center themselves in the stories where they shouldn't be the center. Whether or not the perpetrators of the violence are seen as heroes or villains, they are fully centered in the second half of the film. This takes away from the respect shown to the Osage when they are at a high point, as we don't see their full experience from their perspective. Leon Sumbitches fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Oct 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I wish he had framed the film from the Osage perspective. Rather than knowing who the perpetrators were from the beginning, it would have played more sinisterly and true to life from their perspective. Reading blood meridian, and knowing what I know about my state's history, I would say that this film sanitized a lot of the violence that was common. The ku Klux Klan is introduced as a major force, but we never see what their presence does to the Osage. Genocide is not just white murdering indigenous people, but it includes psychological, emotional and cultural destruction. I don't think that Scorsese did a very good job showing that. the majority of the 3.5 hour longtime is focused on Eunice and King’s gaslighting and abuse of Mollie. she is a stand in for the Osage at large, as King and Eunice represent the white man. All the psychological emotional and cultural destruction is there, its told through her story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
DOPE FIEND KILLA G posted:the majority of the 3.5 hour longtime is focused on Eunice and King There's a version of this movie that actually focuses on Mollie and tells her story as her sisters and ex-husband are murdered and she is poisoned, only for it to be revealed at the end that her husband and his family were behind it, but that's not the story we got.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
checkplease posted:Ending: the radio show is immediately followed up by the real osage people performing a dance, celebrating their culture. I guess I find it a bit cynical to say the ending to trying to shame us for enjoying the film. I see it more as a reminder that their history and culture is real despite being nearly forgotten (like Tulsa as another mentioned). So go read more about them. its very important to note that THIS is the ending scene. not the radio play. The man who made the natives call him King, who thought he was immortal—his legacy is reduced to a grotesque farce. But the Osage, and Mollie, are immortalized in a lasting cultural tradition that can not be destroyed
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
forest for the trees!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Leon Sumbitches posted:I wish he had framed the film from the Osage perspective. Rather than knowing who the perpetrators were from the beginning, it would have played more sinisterly and true to life from their perspective. What's interesting is this is very much the book's approach; the first third of the book focuses on the experiences of Mollie and her family, and the conspiracy slowly coming into picture is what the book is about. The problem there, though, is that Tom White would take over the second and third acts--he's probably the "protagonist" of the book, if a book of that style can be said to have a protagonist. Scorsese made huge changes in how the story is presented for the adaptation with the specific focus of trying to make Mollie more central to the story. Whether he succeeded in that everyone can have their own take on, but I do think the mere fact that she spends about half of the movie bedridden from poison presents some obvious challenges. I actually thought focusing the story around Ernest hammered home the critique of white supremacy very effectively. It helps that DiCaprio and Gladstone had AMAZING chemistry, but the way he erects a total mental and emotional barrier between his complicity in a genocide and his care for his family is really central to the point. The smoke-filled room with the oil barons (man, someone cast Brendan Fraser as Paul Heyman in a Vince McMahon biopic, stat) and the final conversation with Mollie where she addresses the one thing that wasn't a part of his confession and that totally undid the lie he'd been telling himself the whole time--that he truly, deeply loved his family--really tied it together nicely for me: it doesn't matter if you're too dumb to see it (even after someone yells DUMB BOY in your face for five minutes straight), and it doesn't matter what narrative you spin about it to yourself. You're complicit just the same. motherbox fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
motherbox posted:I actually thought focusing the story around Ernest hammered home the critique of white supremacy very effectively. It helps that DiCaprio and Gladstone had AMAZING chemistry, but the way he erects a total mental and emotional barrier between his complicity in a genocide and his care for his family is really central to the point. The smoke-filled room with the oil barons (man, someone cast Brendan Fraser as Paul Heyman in a Vince McMahon biopic, stat) and the final conversation with Mollie where she addresses the one thing that wasn't a part of his confession and that totally undid the lie he'd been telling himself the whole time--that he truly, deeply loved his family--really tied it together nicely for me: it doesn't matter if you're too dumb to see it (even after someone yells DUMB BOY in your face for five minutes straight), and it doesn't matter what narrative you spin about it to yourself. You're complicit just the same. Part of it is that DiCaprio isn't a boy, he's a near 50-year-old man. The real Ernest Burkhart was 26 when he came back from war. DiCaprio's maturity, and his typically "angry man" performance, make him feel more like a full collaborator than someone who was being manipulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
I also found the unintentional subtext about how Leo uses women until they are 25 and then moves on to a new one very fitting for his casting. Unrelatedly, holy gently caress did the scene with Mollie’s mom dying and her having a vision of just all of the bullshit going away hit me hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:Part of it is that DiCaprio isn't a boy, he's a near 50-year-old man. The real Ernest Burkhart was 26 when he came back from war. DiCaprio's maturity, and his typically "angry man" performance, make him feel more like a full collaborator than someone who was being manipulated. I don’t now the real story, but as depicted he’s definitely a knowing collaborator by the end. He may not know exactly where he was giving Molly, but there’s no doubt he see it’s effects and even “just slowing her down” is terrible itself. Good point about Leo’s age though. Wonder what younger actor might have fit Earnest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
jeeves posted:I also found the unintentional subtext about how Leo uses women until they are 25 and then moves on to a new one very fitting for his casting. Yeah Mollys moms visions of death and such was a nice cultural touch. I really liked those types of scenes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:This movie isn't disrespectful to the Osage people but it doesn't tell their story either. This is another Scorsese movie about a gang of self-destructive idiots not getting away with their crimes, down to a montage of collaborators getting taken care of. For all the talk about Tulsa in this movie, it'd be like making a movie about the bombing of Black Wall Street from the perspective of the white supremacists who did it. Tarantino has made the exact movie you're asking for three times now, and just last week he was chilling with the IDF to boost their morale. So maybe rewriting things to where the bad guys get what's coming to them doesn't count for much either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Tarantino has made the exact movie you're asking for three times now, and just last week he was chilling with the IDF to boost their morale. So maybe rewriting things to where the bad guys get what's coming to them doesn't count for much either. It's funny that you bring up Tarantino because at a certain point, I started wondering what a Coen Bros. version of this story would've been like. I think I just prefer their flavor of idiot criminal movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
jeeves posted:
Honestly my favorite part of the movie. Later when Mollie saw the owl it was all  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:Part of it is that DiCaprio isn't a boy, he's a near 50-year-old man. The real Ernest Burkhart was 26 when he came back from war. DiCaprio's maturity, and his typically "angry man" performance, make him feel more like a full collaborator than someone who was being manipulated. Oh definitely. The book definitely is a bit softer on Burkhart, and without any specific attention to whether the film's portryal of him as an individual was accurate, I do think it was both effective and appropriate. Some of the specific inventions that I really liked: -DiCaprio getting really, really angry whenever he has to strong-arm someone into doing Hale's bidding. He always falls back on Hale's authority and aggressively insists its something Hale wants done, totally displacing the fact that he's the one making it happen. -Whenever things get tense with Mollie, he gets really demeaning about her culture and her supposed lack of understanding--medicine, legal things, etc. -The mason lodge scene. Something about the visual farce of a 50 year old man being reprimanded like a child was amazing and really captured a lot about Hale's authority over him (both absolute and absolutely absurd).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
The character wasn’t supposed to be 45-50 though as the actor is, the character was 26. I mean, life was a lot harder on your skin then, but I do wonder how much better the movie would have been if Jesse could have played the main character instead of Leo. Then again the film probably wouldn’t have been made, but still. edit - Ernest Burkhart was 26-28 when the story starts in ~1918-1920. The Tulsa racist bullshit was 1921, which was halfway through the story. He was sentenced to life in prison in 1926 and LIVED TO BE 94 loving YEARS OLD JESUS gently caress. jeeves fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Oct 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
jeeves posted:The character wasn’t supposed to be 45-50 though as the actor is, the character was 26. I mean, life was a lot harder on your skin then, but I do wonder how much better the movie would have been if Jesse could have played the main character instead of Leo. I was thinking that Plemmons could've been great. The character actually shares a lot of similarities with Todd from Breaking Bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
The film didn't touch on this either due a lot of heavy poo poo being dropped on the ending radio broadcast presentation, but both Ernest and Bob Hale were later fully pardoned by the governor of Oklahoma. Just a reminder of the continued hosed up-ness of our country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
I liked the movie but MAN it feels too long. I don't normally have an issue with long movies, but as much as I hate to say/admit this I would have preferred this on streaming so that I could space it out into 2 or even 3 viewings. It was good though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
it flew by for me, it felt very meditative and methodical but loved it. only time I checked my watch was to lol at how long it was until Plemons arrived on screen
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Tumble posted:I liked the movie but MAN it feels too long. I don't normally have an issue with long movies, but as much as I hate to say/admit this I would have preferred this on streaming so that I could space it out into 2 or even 3 viewings. I'm pretty sure, cause I checked my watch more than once, that Plemmons shows up with about an hour and a half left. That means you can split it into two movies, one that's two hours long and the other that's ninety minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2023 00:21
|
|