Money – and the prospect of more money – can drive already terrible people to commit even more terrible acts. To these people, it doesn’t matter who or what stands in their way. If they see an opportunity for money, power, and influence, they’re going to jump at it, no matter who they hurt in the process.
Adapted from David Grann’s non-fiction book of the same name, Killers of the Flower Moon, the latest movie from legendary director Martin Scorsese, is a movie about just those kinds of people. And while it’s mostly great, as you would expect from Scorsese, that’s also one of the bigger drawbacks. The story is inherently an Osage Nation story, but it’s told mostly through the eyes of those who sought to use, manipulate, and murder them for their wealth.
After being forcibly moved to Oklahoma, the Osage Nation thought their fortunes turned when they discovered this new land was rich in oil. This led to them becoming rich beyond their dreams. But with this newfound wealth, trouble followed. Outsiders sought to take their money for themselves, often marrying Osage women in the hopes that the family money would one day become their money.
One of the major threats to the Osage Nation is a purported friend, an enemy hiding in plain sight, William “King” Hale (Robert De Niro), cattle rancher and businessman. Publicly, he’s a friend and ally for the Osage. But privately, he only sees them as a vessel to amassing more wealth for himself and his family (but mostly just himself). When his nephew Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) moves to Oklahoma after serving in World War I, Hale has a new, easily manipulated lackey at his disposal. Ernest eventually marries Mollie (Lily Gladstone), the daughter of a wealthy Osage family. And all that money can become Burkhart’s and Hale’s. All that has to happen is for the rest of Mollie’s family to die, leaving her as the sole beneficiary. And that’s exactly what happens.
Mollie’s mother and older sisters all meet their own unexpected fates. But this is nothing new for the Osage people. They have been suffering through these kinds of deaths (or, let’s be honest here, murders) for years, only to see them swept under the rug or simply outright ignored. But eventually, there are so many murders that they can’t be ignored, and government agents arrive to investigate the slew of death and murders. They are lead by BOI (now FBI) agent Tom White (Jesse Plemons).
While White is there to solve the crimes, there is no mystery for the audience. It’s made quite clear early on who is responsible. And that makes an already dark and disturbing story even more so. And without a mystery for the audience to solve, Scorsese and his co-writer Eric Roth can focus more on the people and larger themes.
You have Hale, who just wants…more. De Niro is quietly terrifying in this role. He so easily slips in and out from friend to foe. He’ll just as easily offer money as part of a reward for information on the murders as he will plan the next murder himself. Ernest may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but he knows full well what he’s doing by going along with his uncle’s plans. DiCaprio gives perhaps a career-best performance as the dim-witted Ernest.
But as great as they are, it’s Gladstone who is the standout. Mollie knows almost nothing but pain in her life, especially once she meets Ernest. She sees countless friends and family die. She herself becomes sick with diabetes, making it even more difficult to cope with all the tragedy that surrounds her. You can see the quiet pain in every glance, every facial movement.
But Gladstone is both one of Killers of the Flower Moon’s greatest strengths and weaknesses – though the latter is due to no fault of her own. The movie simply needed more of her. The vast majority of the movie is told through Ernest and Hale’s perspective. And while they’re plenty interesting and compelling in their own right, this is an Osage story. More specifically, this is Mollie’s family’s story. Seeing the tragedy play out through the eyes of those most affected would have made an already powerful and angering story that much more powerful and angering – and as a result, more effective – if told through the eyes of those actually experiencing these atrocities.
And then there’s the length, always sure to be a topic of discussion when the runtime hits three hours (three hours and twenty-six minutes, to be exact). It’s a tired discussion at this point. A quote from the late great Roger Ebert pops up from time to time whenever a new long movie hits the theaters: “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.” While I disagree in the exact, literal sense, I agree with the overall sensibility behind the quote.
If a movie is long because it needs to be long, and earns that length, then it’s not too long. If every scene serves its purpose, adds to the story, then they all deserve their inclusion in the movie. And there’s nothing egregious here in that regard. Could some scenes have been cut down just a tad? Sure. But if you asked me to which scenes should, or even could, be completely cut, I wouldn’t have an answer. You do feel the length at times, when some scenes drag on. They do what they need to do, and then keep going, without adding anything additional. Again though, minor quibbles.
But with the slow burn story, Scorsese is able to make the motivations and themes as much characters as the people themselves. The simple reading is greed is bad and those seduced by greed will do terrible things. And the greed on display is all-consuming. The white outsiders may talk like they care about the Osage, but their actions certainly say otherwise. And the blithe indifference with which they act makes it all the more appalling.
There’s no motivating factor other than wanting more money and power. There’s no aura of “cool” similar to what drew Henry Hill to wanting to be a gangster in Goodfellas. These people just want money, and they see a group of people in the Osage who they can manipulate and murder to get that money. It might make for a depressing outlook on life, but it’s not one you can argue with. Not in this case at least. Remember, these events actually happened. And the way Scorsese frames it all, especially with the way he ends it, he’s taking everyone to task.
And not just specifically those who committed the crimes against the Osage Nation, or who knew about them but chose not to act. He’s speaking to everyone in the present day as well. “If you see something, say something” might sound corny, but it doesn’t make it any less true. When those who can affect positive change see an opportunity to do so and actively choose not to, it’s a loss for everyone. When those who are disadvantaged are continually taken advantage of, it’s a loss for everyone. Killers of the Flower Moon is as much a call to action as it is a history lesson.
To no one’s surprise, Killers of the Flower Moon is one of the year’s best movies. From a technical perspective, it’s excellent. Score, production design, it’s all top notch. It features three of the best performances you’ll see all year from DiCaprio, Gladstone, and De Niro. Most importantly, it’s major recognition of a dark moment in our country’s history that likely not enough people know about. And if it achieves nothing else besides that, that may not be enough, but it’s a start.
Score: 92/100
