Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: Martin Scorsese, Eric Roth, based on the book by David Grann
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, Tantoo Cardinal, Cara Jade Myers, Janae Collins, Jillian Dion, William Bellau, Everett Waller, Talee Redcorn, Yancey Red Corn, Tatanka Means, Jason Isbell, Louis Cancelmi, Scott Shepherd, Tommy Schultz, Ty Mitchell, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser

Human history is overflowing with crimes against minorities and humanity in general (and shows no signs of abating). Writer/director and filmmaking maestro Martin Scorsese chose to focus his latest project on the early twentieth century plight of the Osage Nation, a midwestern Native American tribe, as oil was discovered on their land and coveted by white Americans. It’s a horridly familiar story, in which white men commit obscene acts against Native people. It’s a narrative that demands tremendous thought, care and humility from its white director. Has Scorsese done right by the Osage Nation with his latest cinematic offering, or should this story have been left to be told by those/descendants of those directly affected by the events of the Reign of Terror?

In 1919, Ernest Burkhart (DiCaprio) returns from WW1 to Fairfax, Oklahoma in the US, a town that is shared by white Americans and the Native American people of the Osage Nation. He lives with his brother Byron (Shepherd) and his uncle William King Hale (De Niro), a cattle rancher and reserve deputy sheriff. William, often called ‘King’ by those who know him, has built a good relationship with the Osage people, going so far as to learn their language, but he’s not all he seems to be. He suggests that Ernest do the same with a particular Osage woman by the name of Mollie Kyle (Gladstone), whose family happen to be very wealthy due to their ownership of land that contains vast amounts of oil (known as ‘headrights’). Ernest and Mollie marry, but their happiness is short lived when Mollie’s family begin to die under mysterious circumstances. The Osage claim murder, but King and other local authorities brush them off as ailments, accidents and the like. Things begin to come to a head when the newly formed Bureau of Investigation (the BOI, later the FBI) get involved and Ernest’s conscience starts to catch up with him.

If you’re familiar with Scorsese’s work, then you will know he is far from being a stranger to adapting books into films and making films pertaining to real events and people. If you’re unfamiliar, just know that Scorsese, for the most part, knows what he is doing. This includes doing his research and consulting with people who are authorities and/or experts on the subjects he tackles in his movies. It is safe to say that with Killers of the Flower Moon, Scorsese did his utmost to be respectful and truthful while creating something for audiences to understand and enjoy. He did everything one is supposed to do when committing to tell a story that you have no personal rights to; people of the Osage Nation were on hand for fact checking as well as giving their input into the experiences of their people, and so much of the story and details (big and small) remained as accurate as possible. The film does come across as informative, but there were of course some liberties taken to add to the drama of the piece, something not unexpected from a Hollywood movie that’s ultimately meant to entertain and make money. Scorsese acknowledged this through a particular scene at the end of the movie, with something he felt so deeply about that he apparently felt he couldn’t direct an actor to perform it, but rather put himself in front of the camera to induce a shift in tone. It worked well; I certainly felt that shift that was meant to bring audiences back to reality and understand the heft of the story we’d seen. Some scenes within the movie were shocking to the point of disbelief, and so the reminder that Killers is based on real events was needed.

Unlike some other projects of Scorsese’s, the pacing of Killers and the general editing was much slower, something that served the story well due to the amount going on in the plot. The run-time amounts to three hours and some change, but the clear three-act structure and said pacing keeps the film from getting stagnant. Likewise, the cinematography was kept fairly simple, but not devoid of life. No detail goes unnoticed, which is expected of someone with an eye like Scorsese’s. There’s plenty to pick apart in each scene, and there are no unnecessary characters: if someone appears in a scene, they are there for a reason, even if that reason isn’t immediately clear. The sets transport us to early 1900s Oklahoma wonderfully, and the mixing of American and Native American cultures in the small town of Fairfax juxtaposes the race riots and segregation between white and Black people that was also still happening at that point in US history, a point that is mentioned during the film. Similarly, the make up and costuming works hard to accurately portray the blending of two cultures, however reluctantly one took on the other. And yet, the addition of Native music performed both as diegetic and non-diegetic also serves as a reminder as to who this story is primarily about. The overall production comes together to immerse the audience as well as keep us aware of what it is we’re witnessing.

The ultimate take-away performance in Killers comes from Gladstone. Her portrayal of Mollie, a strong Osage woman, steals every scene, with her quiet resilience and depth that at times gives way to the emotional upheaval Mollie experiences with each death that occurs in her family. Gladstone won the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Motion Picture for her performance, and rightly so. DiCaprio flaunts his chameleonic acting abilities once again as Ernest, a conflicted character whose emotions are difficult for him to hide. He very convincingly portrays Ernest’s inner battle between his loyalty to King and his love for Mollie. Despite DiCaprio’s legendary status as an actor, he remains humble on screen, knowing when to take the lead and when to take a step back. De Niro also retains his credibility as an all-rounder, taking on the character of William King Hale and fully immersing himself as the villain with no redeeming qualities, allowing audiences to direct their fury at him, leaving little for Ernest by the end. We have some wonderful performances from Cardinal as Mollie’s mother Lizzie, and Myers, Collins and Dion as Mollie’s sisters, as they become victims of the scheming white men. The Kyle women are often used within the film as conduits to portray Osage beliefs, particularly surrounding death, making them more than the sum of their parts within the story. We also have some great supporting performances from Plemons, Bellau, Means, Schultz, and Mitchell, as well as decent smaller performances from Lithgow and Fraser later in the film. It would be hard to argue that this film was certainly very well-cast and boasts good representation.

With Killers of the Flower Moon, Scorsese did what he does best and brought to the fore an event in time that should never be forgotten. From my perspective, he succeeded in highlighting the import of the Reign of Terror and educating those of us who knew nothing about it until now, however whether or not the film itself is truly representative and respectful of the Osage Nation and their experiences is down to Osage and Native peoples to authenticate. Should Scorsese have been the one to bring this film to the big screen, or should a filmmaker of Native ancestry been the one to take the helm? There’s an argument for both sides of this, however we know Scorsese did his due diligence in consulting and involving the Osage people in the project to the point of changing much of the original screenplay to better represent the Osage Nation, something that did nothing but improve the overall tone and informative side of the film. Scorsese has given us another important part of history through using his platform and influence in cinema to ensure we never forget the past.