'Killers of the Flower Moon' is deeply moving and structurally messy

by Mitchel Green - October 22, 2023

| mitchelgreen34@gmail.com source: The Movie Database

One of the critical talking points around Martin Scorsese’s new film “Killers of the Flower Moon” has been whether or not the filmmaker is the right person to tell this story. It’s a complicated question without a clear answer and one the film directly addresses in its final moments. Instead of the standard “what happened to the characters after the story” text that follows a lot of historical dramas, Scorsese frames it as a true crime radio show — a nod to the method by which this story was kept alive for most of the non-Osage public a few decades after the Osage murders took place. In the final moments of this sequence, Scorsese himself comes out to read the obituary of Mollie Burkhart. It’s a profound and melancholic statement on who is allowed to tell the stories of the oppressed for wide audiences (white artists) and how it is often viewed as only worth telling in the context of capital-driven entertainment (Lucky Strike branding is all over the set design, and even interrupts the telling of the Osage story).

While much attention will be on who is telling the story, I think it’s also worth discussing how Scorsese and screenwriter Eric Roth are telling the story. As an adaptation of David Grann’s stellar novel of the same name, the two take liberties with the structure and framing of the events, some of which hinder the film narratively, but many of which make it a much more impactful emotional experience.

The book blends the story of the Osage murders with that of the creation of the FBI and how J. Edgar Hoover essentially used this case to kickstart the institution and give himself more and more power. The story’s scope extends far beyond the Osage Nation and is way too much to cover, even in a film that pushes three and a half hours. So, perhaps wisely, Scorsese and Roth ditch most of that half of the original book in their adaptation.

Yes, Tom White and the FBI eventually show up in Fairfax and bring William Hale and his associates to justice, but White and his team aren’t given nearly the same depth and attention as they are in the book. They are treated as an afterthought rather than heroes, which makes sense because the film is in part trying to capture the point of view of the Osage. To them, why would they be viewed as heroes for coming in too late and taking care of the people the locals already suspected were guilty? While it does work for what Scorsese wants to do thematically in “Killers of the Flower Moon,” that is explore the ugliness of American history through specific oppressors and those they oppress rather than through institutions, it does cause the film to lose a lot of narrative momentum, which can drag the pacing to a near grinding halt at times.

It also means depth for several victims, and the details of the actual murders themselves, are sacrificed for more time with Mollie, Earnest, and Hale — which works when scenes are centered around one or more of those three characters but makes scenes outside that feel superfluous. It creates a strange tension where the film at once feels too long and not long enough, never fully settling on what it wants to keep in and what to leave out. But Scorsese knows that if he’s the one telling this story, he needs to try and keep the focus on the real victims of this tragic period. This is a story about the Osage, and the way Scorsese and Roth adapt the book reflects that in a way Grann’s original work sometimes loses in the back half.

Because Roth and Scorsese change the structure of the book, they have to change the perspective from which the story is told. In the book, the narrative is told from an objective, procedural point of view (until the last couple of chapters when Grann inserts himself into the book and it becomes subjective when the author begins to do detective work himself). In the film, the story shifts to the subjective point of view of Earnest, Mollie’s white husband who is a henchman for his uncle’s murderous crime ring. Scorsese has mentioned how they felt the emotional core of the film is the love story between Earnest and Mollie, which is evident in the outsized focus on it.

The decision to focus on the white man rather than the Osage woman in what is very much a story about the Osage will garner criticism, much of which is warranted, but it works here for two reasons. First, Mollie is sidelined for a good chunk of the events due to her poisoning at the hands of her husband and her doctors. Following her as she lays helpless in bed for months on end wouldn’t be very interesting to watch and would feel overdramatic by wallowing in the suffering — completely clashing with the generally quiet handling of many of the film’s more dramatic sequences. Second, by following Earnest’s perspective, we get a better sense of how evil permeates through this society. It’s sickening how inevitable it all feels, and we don’t get that same feeling without seeing it all play out.

Those coming to the film for a propulsive true crime thriller are going to be disappointed. However, taking that approach would have been a mistake. That version of this story already exists in book form. By opting out of the mystery and refusing to allow catharsis through answers, Scorsese has created a much more meaningful work of art that’s thornier, bleaker, and cuts deeper. In a phase of his career that most other filmmakers would be running out of steam, Scorsese shows once again why he is such an essential American artist. He understands the contradictions and false promises of this country, and “Killers of the Flower Moon,” like the best of his work, isn’t interested in sugar-coating them.