Scorsese going woke?
Feeling he has to make a “whites are bad” movie to stay relevant?
share🥱
share
MovieChat Forums > Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Discussion > Scorsese going woke?
Pretty sure 'whites' are the ones that bring the bad guys to justice in this.
shareIsn't this based on a true story???
I guess any WW2 movie that shows white Nazis must be "woke" now too, right? I mean, why do the historically accurate villains have to be white??? Must be an agenda.
Are there any non white bad guys in movies anymore?
shareNon-white bad guys in movies have always been a rarity. During the Cold War and WW2, bad guys were almost exclusively white because Americans wanted the Russians and Europeans to look evil and anti-capitalistic.
Off the top of my head, Baywatch (2017) had an Indian woman as the villain. Samuel L Jackson has played a villain in several recent films, like Kong: Skull Island and Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. Shaw & Hobbs had Idris Elba as the villain. It's a fairly common action/crime trope to have Latino villains, especially if the film is about drugs.
Samuel L. Jackson was awesome in Kong: Skull Island. He was perfect for the Captain Ahab-type role.
shareMission Impossible Dead Reckoning had a hispanic and Guardians Vol 3 had a black man.
shareSometimes, dude, white people actually do bad things. As is a matter of historical record, when it comes to the treatment of the Osage.
shareThe issue is there's no way that Martin Scorsese doesn't have a huge amount of creative control over the projects he chooses to make. However, instead of making something that we could predictably conceive that he would be interested in as an auteur filmmaker (based on his prior filmography) he most definitely decided to pander to the woke mob in the interests of commercialism.
Some of you folks, like TruMovieFan below as well, seem to be suggesting that because something happened for real (i.e. murder of Osage indians or whatever), a movie must spontaneously exist at the perfect time and it's wrong to criticize it and not just bask in the glory of identity politics. LOL
Until you see more clearly about how the zeitgeist is actually created and then reinforced in media, then you'll always be sheep. I'm a Democrat, and favor Democratic economic (and often social) policies. But there is most definitely such a thing as a woke mob consisting of pathetic virtue signaling lemmings, particularly amongst the 18-35 demographic.
I personally think Scorsese would have been more at home making Oppenheimer. Christopher Nolan refused to pander. Much respect to him! He made the project that interested him. Oppenheimer was not woke. It's timeless, and is elevated beyond the current trend-of-the-time.
Remember that Scorsese adapted Edith Wharton's novel, The Age of Innocence, about upper class 1870 New Yorkers back in 1993. He and his father shared a love of this classic story. Can you imagine if Scorsese decided to make something like that right now?! I can hear it now:
"OMG... like, Scorsese soooo white. *gag* #Canceled" — Keelai (that's exactly what she'd say, and you know it)
You're all a bunch of idiots with absolutely no self-awareness.
Dude, you're one of the bad guys.
share🤣 Now there's an intellectual argument if I've ever seen one. /sarcasm.
Movies aren't real. They are carefully constructed with protagonists and antagonists. I will watch Killers of the Flower Moon, and will no doubt respect and admire Dicaprio's character and hate the murderous villains. I would never harm or disparage people of Native (or whatever else) descent. Perhaps it may be one of my favorite movies of the year, even. But I'm not blind to that fact that it has a social engineering agenda.
The problem with many of you is that you let the terms of office of Barack Obama, followed by Donald Trump, then followed by tired old man, Biden... you let this all carefully construct your worldview in the most generic way based on their preceived race or surface attributes. But Obama wasn't inherently good just because he was open and diverse, and he doesn't represent diversity in America as a concept himself. He's an individual. He was just a man doing an administrative job to protect and uphold the Constitution, and was great at it—admirable strength of character.
Likewise, Trump wasn't bad because he fit an angry prideful white man stereotype... he was bad, rather, because he was a criminal and a predator who cared nothing about governing, but only self-enrichment. Biden doesn't represent the decay of whiteness, he's just 80 years old, and so on.
The woke mob (and sometimes the anti-woke mob) are both too naive and simplistic. The lack of authentic discussion about what is actually going on here just proves that. Does anyone here have any genuine political insight that rises above the fray?
BUT'CHA ARE, BLANCHE, YA ARE ONE OF THE BAD GUYS!!!
You're just defending unearned and undeserved privileges. And to the rest of us, well. It's obvious that you haven't earned and don't deserve what you think you deserve, no more than any of us.
I don't know how to respond to that. Sounds like projection of some sort. Are you talking about the policy of affirmative action? I think a clear-headed approach to that could be to actually favor it, but also to wonder at what point must it discontinue. Ten years from now? Does murder of Osage Indians 100 years ago mean that every Native American résumé should go on top of the pile indefinitely? But, those are people who would be dead by now anyhow, right? The Oklahoman murderers would be dead as well. Does this policy only apply to the State of Oklahoma, or does New Hampshire have to do likewise? What about cases where some Native Americans brutally impaled a Colonialist with arrows and then scalped them just because they wore the blue uniform associated with Andrew Jackson? Does that person's descendents get reparations because their great great grandfather had to grow up hardly knowing their great great great grandfather!? Are we to recognize some Native American tribes as BAD, while some are GOOD? So ridiculous.
The Left needs to focus on adopting and propagating the notion of meritocracy based on ideas and accomplishments above everything else they are trying to do. Like what Martin Luther King famously said about recognizing, not color of skin, but rather "content of character."
Jesus, give it up. You are just pulling pure bullshit out of the air. If anything, this is a movie that should have been made one way or another and was most likely picked by Scorsese because he saw it as a fascinating film to be made. Not only that, Grann's writing and the popularity of the book probably grabbed his attention because Grann is a very good writer when it comes to fascinating topics that often times go overlooked.
share[deleted]
You could very well be right about all that. You sound like you are quite invested in this particular story.
What catches my eye lately are things that still have the courage to go against the grain of wokeness and tribalism.
But I will see this film.
I saw "Killers of the Flower Moon" last night. It's definitely not for the faint of heart.
shareYou are a strange, sad, little man.
Who responds to trolling with paragraph after paragraph of bullshit that nobody's going to read.
You certainly have a high opinion of yourself to think that you, and your trolling, were an essential element of our exchange.
People who are accustomed to reading books—non-fiction especially, rather than TikTok posts, might read my contributions.
Online college courses, likewise, have similar discussions. Looks like I’m working to cater to and branch out with new contributors who have yet to arrive to Moviechat.
I hope they’ll soon join us. Thanks for your time.
Oh honey, you think anyone, anywhere takes you seriously?
shareYes Trump is all about himself.....He likes cheap gas, low inflation and no wars.
shareYes Trump is all about himself.....He likes cheap gas, low inflation and no wars.
shareAre the Osage the good guys? Don’t look too deeply into their history with the other Plains Indian tribes like the Cutthroat Gap Massacre. You’ll also need to avoid reading about their history as slave traders. Oh and likewise avoid looking at which side they fought for in the Civil War. Also, avoid reading about their no quarters battle tactics that involved beheading men women and children. In reality if you go back just a few decades before the timeframe of this movie, you’ll find the Osage had many ugly aspects of their own history which nobody is going to make a movie about. And I don’t think their tribal government is losing any sleep over it or drafting any plan for reparations.
shareAnd how many of the oil-rich Osage of the 1920s had participated in any of that? Were any of the women who were shot or poisoned in the story guilty of those long-past atrocities? No, they weren't, they hadn't been born yet!
So if you think it was okay to kill and rob innocent Osages because their ancestors had done bad things, then I assume you're going to be the first to voluntarily pay Reparations.
Seems like you’re switching positions. The OP was lamenting that the movie would have a “whites are bad” theme and you posted that the generalization was true as a matter of historical record (at least as related to the Osage). My point is that if you’re going to condemn an entire race like that, then you won’t be happy when you examine the history of the Osage because they have a fair share of their own atrocities as a race. Now you seem to be saying that it’s inappropriate to generalize about a race of people when it comes to individuals who had nothing to do with the atrocities of their ancestors. I completely agree with that as it was the overarching point of my previous post.
shareI know nothing about the history of the Osage other than what I read in this book, and I'm sure as hell not taking YOUR word for it, but the fact is that pretty much everyone on Earth has ancestors who've committed atrocities. My own Viking ancestors were horrible, believe me the slave trading was the least of their crimes, but would the vile deeds of my ancestor make it okay to kill me for my money even though I myself have never done anything wrong? Fuck no, it wouldn't!
But here you are, trying to make the Osage the bad guys, in a situation where they were being frankly robbed and murdered for their money, and you're using their ancestors as a justification. Well, if you believe in punishing people for the deeds of their ancestors, you logically HAVE to cough up those reparations!
I agree with the main point of your first para because, as I said, it was the overarching point of my original post. Your second para is again attributing a position to me that I never took. I am 100% against punishing a race of people for the sins of their ancestors. It now sounds like you are too. So perhaps we actually agree. When I read your earlier post though, it appeared you were saying the opposite: that “whites are bad” was a generalization you believed “as a matter of historical record” at least as relates to the Osage tribe. This also suggested you did have knowledge of Osage history which you now disavow outside of the Flower Moon book. Forgive me if I misinterpreted your original post but you also seem to be saying contradictory things.
shareSweetie, in this historical case, the whites WERE bad. Sometimes they are, learn to deal with it, and admit such a case when you see it, because if you don't admit it then you're denying the obvious truth and making a fool of yourself.
And you're the one who slammed innocent people, which is such a weak argument that at that point I stopped taking you even slightly seriously. And having said my piece, I hereby dismiss you from my thoughts. Goodbye!
C’mon Otter, don’t get pissed off. We can disagree sometimes. You just can’t attribute positions to me that I’m not taking. I always appreciate your takes. We’ll agree more than disagree in the future.
shareOkay, I don't remember you being annoying before, and it's possible you just followed that line of thought because you hadn't read the book.
Because yes, when it comes to the story of the Osage in the 1920s US, at that point they were innocent victims. They had money that white people wanted, money they'd gained without the usual capitalist shenanigans, and they were suffering murder, robbery, and legislative abuse, because they had money and a bunch of white people wanted to take it for themselves.
he most definitely decided to pander to the woke mob in the interests of commercialism.
Oh so the mantras changed now has it ?
It used to be "Go Woke , Go Broke" ( because we the majority of sensible god fearing no nonsense types dont like it )
now its "pandering in the interests of commercialism." ( ie many people will buy it)
Soooo , you're basically saying the "woke mob" are the majority , aka the normal people ,
THEREFORE those upset are bigoted white supremacist types who lose their shit every time they see a movie containing a minority or a white man doing something wrong , even if its a historical fact.
The thing is, it's probably not going to be full-on "Woke"! Scorcese is probably going to present it as a bunch of white men fighting over the Osage and their money, and the Osage characters are probably going to be given the "damsel in distress" treatment.
A full-blown Woke movie would make the Osage characters the protagonists, but the fact is, DiCaprio and DeNiro have top billing, and the book is largely about a team of good white men fighting bad white men, with a single white man who has a stake with both sides tipping the balance at a crucial point. So it's being directed by a white man and stars his white buddies in major roles, so IMHO the finished product will feature Osage characters who get a reasonable amount of screen time, but all the action will be driven by the white male characters.
Nice return to form. I like your analysis here. Good points.
Perhaps Scorsese will instead be taking the trend of wokeness to a more moderate level. I hope it sticks.
Critics may actually review it harshly based on this very fact, and that’s the kind of mindset I’m dreading.
Yes.
shareWhether the term "woke" rightfully applies or not, certain aspects of "Killers of the Flower Moon" demonstrate that Scorsese(evidently with the agreement of Leo DiCaprio) elected to make a major change to the storyline and casting of this movie that -- Scorsese has evidently conceded -- might hurt the prospects of the movie.
Not BECAUSE of the woke aspects of it , but because of a change in DiCaprio in terms of the role he has elected to play. To wit:
The novel as written features an evil , murderous white Town Boss(Robert DeNiro always had this role) who engineers many murders of the Osage --- AND features the FBI agent sent to take DeNiro on and solve the murders.
Leo was evidently originally set to play the FBI agent, but Scorsese has said, "that makes the story about the white guys." So he and Leo came to mutual agreement that Leo would shift to a "villainous role"(all the way? I'm not sure) , that the FBI guy role would go to the ubiquitous and rather goofy-looking young character guy Jesse Plemons(who worked with Scorsese and DeNiro on The Irishman, and who has rather parlayed his odd looks into a real career -- Breaking Bad started it.)
The script had to be re-written to beef up Leo's part and reduce Plemons' part, and the resultant shift is evidently one reason that Apple is allowing a longer theatrical release of the film -- without Leo playing the hero, the film is now more downbeat and needs more box office(or so I have read.)
Hmm. Sounds like compromises were made for the sake of woke, which resulted in messy rewrites and a bloated runtime. Not good.
I’ll need to hear from trustworthy non-woke critics and commenters before considering investing in this.
Hmm. Sounds like compromises were made for the sake of woke, which resulted in messy rewrites and a bloated runtime. Not good.
----
I think this might have to be taken into consideration. What's interesting is that the story keeps shifting a bit, but now it seems that Scorsese is saying that it was Leo, not himself, who decided that Leo should be shifted away from the FBI hero role. (Note that because the Actors Strike is still on as I post this, only Scorsese can promote the movie with interviews.)
Still, the issue is not so much that messy re-writes(which took time and had to be paid for, I assume, by the studio -- Apple?) took place and a bloated runtime is in place...but whether or not the resulting movie is, indeed, a good one. And that's always a matter of opinion with ANY movie, right? I"ve seen some early reviews and they split - "masterpiece" versus "not one of Scorsese's best."
The script had to be re-written to beef up Leo's part and reduce Plemons' part, and the resultant shift is evidently one reason that Apple is allowing a longer theatrical release of the film -- without Leo playing the hero, the film is now more downbeat and needs more box office(or so I have read.)
--
Hmm. Sounds like compromises were made for the sake of woke, which resulted in messy rewrites and a bloated runtime. Not good.
---
Now that I've seen the film, I'm not sure that anything was done to reduce Jesse Plemmons part -- the "bloat" of the film(which to me is just more length, its OK) is to give Leo much more to do in the first two hours as the other guy.
That said, it is possible that in an earlier version of the script -- with Leo set for the FBI man -- the FBI man would have entered the story much earlier, had more confrontations with DeNiro and whoever played Ernest(Plemmons?)..a different movie would have emerged, maybe shorter.
I'm not much for entering "woke" battles, but if I understand correctly, Scorsese sounded woke when he said "the version with Leo as the FBI guy would be about the white guys" and wanted to shift to more screen time for the Osage (though Lily Gladstone didn't get THAT much screen time.)
I think "Killers of the Flower Moon" is a good, powerful movie...short of a masterpiece (on first viewing) but still possible to become one on later viewings.
Both The Wolf of Wall Street(with Leo) and THe Irishman(with DeNiro) were more entertaining overTHEIR long run times, than this. But then this is a more grim, sad and enraging story. It hits more deeply.
My least favorite Scorsese film of "recent" years is Shutter Island, where Leo looked (to me) for all the world like a little boy dressed up in his dad's overcoat and hat , too big for his body. The plot didn't engage me and the role of the wife was one that I confused with the wife in Nolan's "Inception" also with Leo.
But that's just me.
Shutter Island is one of my very favourite Scorsese films but I completely agree with your description of Leo… ‘Leo looked (to me) for all the world like a little boy dressed up in his dad's overcoat and hat , too big for his body.’
I pretty much feel that way whenever I see Leo. He’s always a teenage boy trying very hard, and never an adult with any kind of natural gravitas.
Nevertheless, his talent and commitment do ultimately shine through and his acting towards the end of Shutter Island is very impressive.
Shutter Island is one of my very favourite Scorsese films
---
I had to figure that if I volunteered my dislike for Shutter Island(well, it more like indifference)...somebody out there who loves it would appear. And that's what's great about movies, yes? We all respond to different stories.
---
but I completely agree with your description of Leo… ‘Leo looked (to me) for all the world like a little boy dressed up in his dad's overcoat and hat , too big for his body.’
---
I think one reason I could not buy into Shutter Island is that right from the START, seeing Leo in that get-up ruined my ability to see him as the character.
Though they have all aged into their 40's and 60's and it isn't such a problem anymore, a problem with the "modern Hollywood male movie star" is that so MANY of them looked like boys when they started out: Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, Leo. Brad Pitt played a little tougher, but was still perhaps "a pretty boy" starting out. The age of middle-aged male leads from Bogart to John Wayne to Lee Marvin to George C. Scott sort of gave way to "boy men." Today, when I show movies with Wayne or Marvin to younger people they say "what is that old guy starring in a movie for?"
--
CONT
I pretty much feel that way whenever I see Leo. He’s always a teenage boy trying very hard, and never an adult with any kind of natural gravitas.
---
Though he got great reviews in "legitimate boy roles" BEFORE Titanic(like Gilbert Grape), Leo actually got some poor reviews in some of his first movies AFTER Titanic as "miscast for age" -- even in Scorsese movies like Shutter Island, Gangs of New York, and The Aviator.
But he hung in there and kept working with the best -- Scorsese, Tarantino(his plantation owner in "Django Unchained" is like a spoiled Boy King -- and Spielberg (where he DID fit "Catch me If You Can.")Then he got all Mountain Man and bearded for The Revenant and won a Best Actor Oscar. (He didn't win an Oscar, but Robert Redford sorta did this look for Jeremiah Johnson back in the 70s.)
---
Nevertheless, his talent and commitment do ultimately shine through and his acting towards the end of Shutter Island is very impressive.
---
He keeps ending up in major movies, often hits -- I do think Leo's aging well into his career and his acting skill must be legit to have lasted this long. I'll have to revisit his performance in Shutter Island.