Great Free Press story on the full history of Native Americans in cinema told through a personal lens. I’m glad I started subscribing for content like this. I saw “Flowers of the Killer Moon” opening weekend and I admit being wary — but this article restored the honorable purpose of shared group identity and being allowed to tell one’s o…
Great Free Press story on the full history of Native Americans in cinema told through a personal lens. I’m glad I started subscribing for content like this. I saw “Flowers of the Killer Moon” opening weekend and I admit being wary — but this article restored the honorable purpose of shared group identity and being allowed to tell one’s own stories. Though one glaring omission, obviously, are the fact the writers are white (Eric Roth and director Martin Scorsese), as was the book’s author. Though what they did was document and convey indigenous people’s experiences like few white storytellers have.
Amazing in this FP piece is how interwoven and tightly knit the Native American creative community is — and you see it here from the baby Lily Gladstone being introduced to the writer’s daughter acting across from her in “Reservation Dogs” to what may be the first American Indian lead actress Oscar nominee. Though, please nominate Gladstone for her performance and not to fill in some diversity box. That’s the worry these days and what art and culture has set itself up for. Tokenization is a thing.
Hollywood has had a huge influence on me in terms of building sympathy with the cause of Native Americans and indigenous. But did it manipulate me at a young age? Well, most art does. And TV and movies definitely made me a liberal most of my life. I saw “Little Big Man” with Dustin Hoffman as a kid and truly got swept up in its narrative poking the eye of racist America. It was part of my “progressive” awakening through most of my young adulthood. I rewatched it in my 40s recently and found it histrionic and distorted art, emblematic of the radical turn the country was taking when it was created in the early 1970s. The director Arthur Penn years earlier made murderers Bonnie & Clyde sympathetic. “Little Big Man” seen today in the BLM era which is also built on distortions? I couldn’t buy it. It was mostly “white man bad.” It’s not that simple.
But many movies do a great job of discussing the cultural and human wreckage from the interaction between white settlers and natives. 1992’s “Last of the Mohicans” was a shining example, still an all-time favorite, and after seeing “Flowers of the Killer Moon” I would say it carries the torch well enough. It wasn’t too “woke” as some worry about, but tells an authentic story.
I, too, sorry that as we get into “land acknowledgments” and constant hand-wringing over the past with Canadian residential school burial sites (which turned out to be fake news) and talk of “genocide” we’re not actually helping indigenous people today. I believe grievance narratives never do — and they further keep communities from lifting themselves up. It can also tar Western expansionist history, which is flawed but I think truly had noble intentions. I think “white supremacy” is far more complicated than the academic and activist class framing this history.
Hell, there’s an Indian group even suing to restore the Washington Redskins name, which polls show 9 in 10 Americans had no problem with that name. Which again begs the question: Do mostly lefty artists truly tell accurately the diverse views within their communities?
Basically: Be careful of the Hollywood brainwashing. But enjoy a good and honest story. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and smart artists, no matter their bias, can still tell important stories.
Does Lily Gladstone help carry director Martin Scorsese’s film forward authentically? I think so. The tale truly is from the Osage tribe’s POV as well as the “gangsters” of this story, which are the white men. Can’t shy from that.
This film is probably as real as “Goodfellas” or “Casino” — a stylized story of human greed. Coincidentally, Robert De Niro plays the greedy gangster in all three.
I worry that we over-romanticize this dying culture struggling to survive (as are its members, facing poverty and endemic substance abuse), but we have to honor it. It’s a tough balancing act.
“Flowers of the Killer Moon” had other flaws, from the gore meant to truly suck the wind out of the audience, and maybe shame them a bit. The opaqueness of the plot doesn’t help, and I wonder why they made the choice — which I’m seeing more often these days — of having characters speak a non-english language and omit subtitles. It’s a cheap way to “immerse” the audience but makes no sense if both characters onscreen can understand one another. It confuses more then it enlightens.
Hopefully art and culture can turn a corner and present even more nuanced stories than this one. Which is still excellent. Scorsese at 80 and DiCaprio pushing 50 do it again.
3.5 out of 4 stars for “Flowers of the Killer Moon.”
(PS - I can’t believe I typed this up on my phone as my first FP comment.)
Great Free Press story on the full history of Native Americans in cinema told through a personal lens. I’m glad I started subscribing for content like this. I saw “Flowers of the Killer Moon” opening weekend and I admit being wary — but this article restored the honorable purpose of shared group identity and being allowed to tell one’s own stories. Though one glaring omission, obviously, are the fact the writers are white (Eric Roth and director Martin Scorsese), as was the book’s author. Though what they did was document and convey indigenous people’s experiences like few white storytellers have.
Amazing in this FP piece is how interwoven and tightly knit the Native American creative community is — and you see it here from the baby Lily Gladstone being introduced to the writer’s daughter acting across from her in “Reservation Dogs” to what may be the first American Indian lead actress Oscar nominee. Though, please nominate Gladstone for her performance and not to fill in some diversity box. That’s the worry these days and what art and culture has set itself up for. Tokenization is a thing.
Hollywood has had a huge influence on me in terms of building sympathy with the cause of Native Americans and indigenous. But did it manipulate me at a young age? Well, most art does. And TV and movies definitely made me a liberal most of my life. I saw “Little Big Man” with Dustin Hoffman as a kid and truly got swept up in its narrative poking the eye of racist America. It was part of my “progressive” awakening through most of my young adulthood. I rewatched it in my 40s recently and found it histrionic and distorted art, emblematic of the radical turn the country was taking when it was created in the early 1970s. The director Arthur Penn years earlier made murderers Bonnie & Clyde sympathetic. “Little Big Man” seen today in the BLM era which is also built on distortions? I couldn’t buy it. It was mostly “white man bad.” It’s not that simple.
But many movies do a great job of discussing the cultural and human wreckage from the interaction between white settlers and natives. 1992’s “Last of the Mohicans” was a shining example, still an all-time favorite, and after seeing “Flowers of the Killer Moon” I would say it carries the torch well enough. It wasn’t too “woke” as some worry about, but tells an authentic story.
I, too, sorry that as we get into “land acknowledgments” and constant hand-wringing over the past with Canadian residential school burial sites (which turned out to be fake news) and talk of “genocide” we’re not actually helping indigenous people today. I believe grievance narratives never do — and they further keep communities from lifting themselves up. It can also tar Western expansionist history, which is flawed but I think truly had noble intentions. I think “white supremacy” is far more complicated than the academic and activist class framing this history.
Hell, there’s an Indian group even suing to restore the Washington Redskins name, which polls show 9 in 10 Americans had no problem with that name. Which again begs the question: Do mostly lefty artists truly tell accurately the diverse views within their communities?
Basically: Be careful of the Hollywood brainwashing. But enjoy a good and honest story. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and smart artists, no matter their bias, can still tell important stories.
Does Lily Gladstone help carry director Martin Scorsese’s film forward authentically? I think so. The tale truly is from the Osage tribe’s POV as well as the “gangsters” of this story, which are the white men. Can’t shy from that.
This film is probably as real as “Goodfellas” or “Casino” — a stylized story of human greed. Coincidentally, Robert De Niro plays the greedy gangster in all three.
I worry that we over-romanticize this dying culture struggling to survive (as are its members, facing poverty and endemic substance abuse), but we have to honor it. It’s a tough balancing act.
“Flowers of the Killer Moon” had other flaws, from the gore meant to truly suck the wind out of the audience, and maybe shame them a bit. The opaqueness of the plot doesn’t help, and I wonder why they made the choice — which I’m seeing more often these days — of having characters speak a non-english language and omit subtitles. It’s a cheap way to “immerse” the audience but makes no sense if both characters onscreen can understand one another. It confuses more then it enlightens.
Hopefully art and culture can turn a corner and present even more nuanced stories than this one. Which is still excellent. Scorsese at 80 and DiCaprio pushing 50 do it again.
3.5 out of 4 stars for “Flowers of the Killer Moon.”
(PS - I can’t believe I typed this up on my phone as my first FP comment.)