28
Feb '23
I recently watched the new Scorsese film Killers of the Flower Moon, which stars Robert DeNiro, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Lily Gladstone. The film is about the Osage people who were given land in Oklahoma as their reservation by the federal government. They were given the worst land, full of drought, and not good for crops or raising cattle. But by a miracle, oil is discovered on their land. The town grows rapidly and the Osage people become the richest people around with white people as their drivers, their cooks, and their nannies. We follow DiCaprio’s character in the early 1920s as he moves to Oklahoma to live with his uncle King (played by DeNiro). DiCaprio’s character is impressionable and does whatever his uncle tells him. He marries an Osage woman who he says he really loves. And then following his uncle’s instructions, he slowly begins to aid in the murder of all of her family members so that their money and right to the money from the oil will go to his wife. Without spoiling too much, he even goes so far as to poison his own wife at his uncle’s command.
The story is captivating and despite its 3 hours and 26 minute run time, kept me hooked until the end. The end of the movie is surprising (spoilers ahead). Instead of telling the audience the outcome of the jury when DeNiro’s character is tried for the murders, we jump to a true crime radio broadcast where we listen in as part of the studio audience to the ending of the story. DeNiro’s character serves some time in prison, but despite being found guilty for multiple murders, really doesn’t come to any sort of true justice. And it’s this scene that made me start asking some questions.
First, there is a whole discussion to be had about true crime radio shows, or speaking in today’s terms, podcasts and TV shows. Jumping to that point of view after watching the suffering of this Osage family, suddenly trivialized their murders. In the podcast/radio show setting, the murders became entertainment, and the story was much more about the murderer and how he got away with it, than about these native people who were killed by white people and nothing was done about it. As I thought about this, I thought about true crime podcasts. I am in not a true crime junkie. To be honest, true crime stories freak me out and make me double check my doors are locked. But I know true crime podcasts and shows are incredibly popular. What I don’t know, but I would speculate, is that true crime podcasts also focus on the murderer like he radio show at the end of the movie did and how he or she got away with it. Do they focus on the victims, do they honor the victims? Is the victims' deaths just being used for entertainment?
I also recently watched all 4 seasons of Only Murders in the Building and I’d say this assumption that true crime podcasts use murders for entertainment is pretty true. Obviously Only Murders is a comedy TV show, and it’s a fictional story so I can’t judge it too harshly. And I really enjoyed watching the show and can’t wait for season 5. But as someone who doesn’t consume true crime podcasts or TV shows, it opened my eyes even more to this unique form of entertainment. And it continued to impress on me that the truest entertainment isn’t in mourning the death of the victim, or seeing how their family is handling the trauma, but it’s in tracking down the killer, or trying to figure out the killer’s motivations.
Second, there is another whole discussion to be had around the suffering of people of color and how those stories are told. Now I am a huge believer in the stories of all people being represented in film. I believe there is power in representation of all kinds including race, gender, disabilities, neurodivergence, etc. I also think film is a powerful format for storytelling and can help viewers create new empathy and understanding for people that are different than them. So I would always say, it’s so important to tell the stories of people of color. But after watching Killers of the Flower Moon, while I came away educated about a time in history that I knew nothing about and with a greater empathy for native people in the United States, I also came away feeling like Scorsese exploited the story for money and awards. Ok, hear me out. Hollywood, filmmaking, that is a business. You can pretend like it’s not all you want, but it is. A movie either has to make money or have the potential to win awards in order for a studio to green light it. So technically every story in a movie is being exploited for money. But how do we reconcile the fact that a white man, who is famous for making mobster movies, directed a film about native American murders, and then turned it into entertainment? Would I feel more comfortable if the director wasn’t white? Would I feel more comfortable if in the end their was justice and the murdered had harsher consequences? That wouldn’t be historically accurate, so am I saying they should change the ending to make me more comfortable? Or should I accept this uncomfortable feeling?
Again, I believe stories of all types of people should be told. And I’m glad I saw this movie because otherwise I probably wouldn’t know anything about the Osage people. But I’m still feeling like this real story that affected real people was somehow cheapened. Maybe that was the point of the movie?
I don’t have any answers, I just have questions. How do we navigate telling the stories of people of color without using their stories as entertainment? How do we tell the stories of true crime murders and honor the victims instead of hyperfocusing on the murderer? How do we bring empathy to the table when we’re telling real stories about real people?