I'm glad I didn't see this in a theatre. Because after two hours I would have been squirming, wondering if I could make it to the end without hightailing it for the bathroom.

Although I did sit through the entire thing at home. Knowing the loo was just a few steps away, that I could bolt when the pressure became overwhelming. But it didn't. Making me wonder whether it's psychological at the cineplex, at least some of the time.

Not that I think I missed a whole hell of a lot watching on the flat screen. Because with today's technology and size it replicates the theatre experience. Once again, I'm watching on a 65" LG OLED, the industry standard, and I highly recommend it, makes all the difference. The film would have been inferior on a smaller screen with less clear definition and color. As for the old days, when the tube TV ratio was different and you lost part of the image...then you had to go to the theatre, the experience at home was vastly inferior. But no longer.

I do not think "Raging Bull" was the best movie of the eighties. As talented as Scorsese is, he's got a problem with arc. A traditional movie builds to the climax whereas too often Marty's films are flat. They're more like reading a book. Or a miniseries.

Which is what "Killers of the Flower Moon" should have been. I know complete series that are shorter than its three hour and twenty six minute length. Why this had to be a movie...

Oh, that's right. Movies are an art form, of the highest visual standard, and when it comes to television...that's second-rate.

These are the same people who can't stop hating on technology. Things change and they can't accept them. I blame the boomers, who think exterior makes interior. You can use Mounjaro, dress in skinny jeans, own an iPhone 15 and still be out of the loop. It's nearly impossible to keep up with the changing society. And never forget, the mainstream media completely missed the Trump revolution of 2016, even though it was hiding in plain sight. Making one wonder why we should trust these outlets. The same ones lauding the performance of Lily Gladstone.

Which barely exists. This is not Gary Oldman in "Slow Horses." Most of the time Gladstone is blank. Oftentimes you're not exactly sure what is going on inside that noggin, if it's anything at all. But she's the star of a highly respected movie so of course she deserves awards.

As for Leo... Am I the only one who doesn't get DiCaprio? Even though he's pushing fifty, it's hard for me to see him as an adult. It's not that he's a bad actor, but he's far from transcendent. Like Robert De Niro.

De Niro is the star of "Killers of the Flower Moon." He delivers an understated performance that rings wholly true. Makes me sad that he's eighty, on the downside of his life, that we won't get more years of him in shows. De Niro earns his accolades. As for his role as King Bill Hale in this movie... I don't know if he shrunk or he's just made to appear small yet powerful. Hale is a titan of society. You know, the type who gladhands and smiles and always says the right thing but in reality is solely out for himself. Too many of our esteemed executives are the same way. Candy-coated on the outside, pure evil on the inside. And it's so great to watch De Niro try to will the situation to his benefit. The way he tries to convince DiCaprio and others to do what is good for him by saying it's good for them.

As for the cinematography... Rich and brilliant. Only Apple would give Scorsese all this money to do it his way, and a lot of it ends up on screen.

And while you're watching, you're wondering how much of this is real, truth. I got the book from the library, but I couldn't penetrate it. Then again, I very much enjoyed "The Wager," David Grann's new book, then again, like a Scorsese movie, it too is flat. The facts are amazing, the story well told, but it all peters out at the end, even the escape.

Anyway, you watch a movie like this and you wonder if the characters are fake or real, plot devices or based on people. Not that it hurts the enjoyment of the picture, it just made me wonder how big a story this was. This is an epic movie, which will probably win the Oscar for Best Picture, but even the way it's presented makes the story seem trivial, or at least secondary, this is not the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, excavated from the past and now part of our national fabric. This story of Native Americans and oil is just not presented that way.

So if you've got Apple TV+ I highly recommend watching "Killers of the Flower Moon." It's flawless in execution. It delivers a story you're unaware of, unless you read the book, and you're edified to your benefit. And you have the good guys and bad guys of the west. But that wallop, that feeling of fullness yet emptiness at the end of a tour-de-force masterpiece, like "The Godfather," how it ended and you stood in the theatre staring at the blank screen...this is not that.

All those great movies that take you on a ride, have you leaving your world behind to inhabit a new one, such that when you're placed back in reality you're stunned..."Killers of the Flower Moon" is not that.

"Killers of the Flower Moon" is a combination history lesson, travelogue and old school white hat/black hat western.

I very much enjoyed watching it. I guess I just want to counteract the hosannas. Especially if you haven't seen it. It's an achievement, but that's very different from the zeitgeist movie experience, that has you riveted, on the end of your seat.

But at least it got made. You get the story. But somehow, when it's all done, you don't feel the story, you can let it go. Because Scorsese was so busy getting the details right that the essence of moviemaking, the underlying story arc, the build and then the release, were secondary.

A great movie...

Well, I think I already described it. You're wowed. You'll be wowed by the visuals of "Killers of the Flower Moon," but there's no way you'll turn to a friend and insist they see it. It's not quite a chore. But at times it's a bit too paint-by-numbers. I can name numerous television series that are superior. But that's because TV is all about story, whereas too often today's movies are about image.

Watch it, let me know what you think.

Then again, the days of movie criticism are passé. No longer does the public analyze movies, poring over details, what they mean, what the director was trying to achieve. Actually, today's vaunted film directors tend to be like today's record producers. Both engineers as opposed to amorphous free spirits who try to capture the aforementioned zeitgeist.

Rick Rubin can't twirl the dials, but he can get the artist in the head of recording transcendent music. T-Bone Burnett too. You can know how to work Pro Tools, you can get a pristine sound, but music is about more than sound.

And movies are about more than image.

Scorsese sits somewhere in between the precision cinematographer directors of today and the auteurs of the past.

But we forget the popcorn movies.

"The Sopranos" is superior to any film released in the twenty first century. And no one ever talks about the images, they talk about the story, the relationships, which reflect life.

There's life in "Killers of the Flower Moon," but it's subservient to image, and that's unfortunate.

Not that I want to dismiss the film. It's far superior to the rest of the pack. But I wish it was just a little bit more. That it captured a je ne sais quoi that's a feature of every film classic. You can watch "Killers of the Flower Moon" but it rarely touches your heart. It's more of a spectacle. And in a world where technology has delivered so much physical perfection we're looking for something a bit flawed, a bit human, that makes us feel alive. That's what resonates. The click track might make it perfect, but it also might excise the humanity of the song, and art needs to be human. I can see beneath the surface of Bill Hale in this movie, but the rest of the characters end up being more two-dimensional than three, which means we just can't get inside them enough to truly understand them, and resonate with them, or judge them.

We seem to have lost the art of chiaroscuro analysis. Something is either good or bad, period. Shades of gray are not allowed. But it's in the shadows that things are unclear, where life and the mind truly live. Despite the gray in so many images in "Killers of the Flower Moon," I wish we could have seen more of this gradation in the characters.

"Killers of the Flower Moon" is very good. But what we're really looking for his greatness. And if we can't hold our artists' feet to the fire, if all we can do is pledge fealty to them, it's not only their loss, but ours.

But that's the society we now live in.

--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1

If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe

To change your email address this link