Robert De Niro received his eighth acting Oscar nomination for portraying William King Hale in Killers of the Flower Moon.
I will admit coming into the film I pretty much thought I was going to know how Robert De Niro was going to approach the role of William Hale, one of the most evil men of history, and to the credit of the great actor he instantly surprised me the moment his nephew Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) stepped on his estate after having returned from being a soldier in World War I. The first being De Niro's accent, which in the tricky mid-west to southern regions it is easy to become overwrought very quickly, perhaps even a co-star of his is, and maybe even De Niro fell to this trap in his last Oscar-nominated Scorsese turn, but here De Niro's work is on point. De Niro's accent not only makes him simply fit the setting of Oklahoma it also oddly disarms you within the character. As De Niro's accent isn't just of the period, of the area, it is also surprisingly welcoming innately. There's an ease in his voice that seems to want to invite everyone into his good company, not just his kin even, he appears to be the man of the people everyone says he is within the story early on, not the monster that you'll learn he is throughout the film. Take the first scene, where yes Hale is welcoming his nephew back, but De Niro's whole demeanor is just exuding a generous warmth towards him, but just also seemingly to the world as he tries to accentuate every positive in Ernest's story of war, which mostly involved feeding other troops and almost dying of a burst gut. And on rewatch De Niro is simply brilliant here in what he is doing, in actually immediately creating the full intention of Hale even as he seems like just a man being happy to see his nephew again. But when going through specific motions about Ernest's prospects, De Niro eyes shift towards a more incisive stare at times, and you can almost see the calculation in his head processing what value the nephew may have for him.
The surprise of De Niro's work resonates even more towards the scenes where we see Hale in public. And in public De Niro exudes a charisma that is so specific to period and kind of the time of this man about the community. And part of this creates the suspect in plain sight because his performance is so much as seemingly a good man, but the thing is, which is the choice I find the most fascinating, is this isn't entirely a facade as played by De Niro. Not just because he's convincing either, which De Niro is, as take this as a different film, remove some scenes obviously, and you'd think that Hale was merely the wise old man who everyone can trust. In the sequence where Ernest marries the Osage woman Mollie (Lily Gladstone), who is heir to a substantial fortune, De Niro is, for the lack of a better word, lovely. First in his advising Ernest as he'll be married with frankly a sweet sense of encouragement, then at the wedding where Hale reminisces of seeing Mollie as a little girl, his eyes are filled with nostalgia, his manner as a man just encouraging love, because De Niro's delivery is with this earnest quiet conviction and more than that the surprising warmth about the man. De Niro from the outside perspective doesn't leave you any room to even suspect the man would be anyone but a good man. When the man is stating his own claim to support the Osage when they offer a reward money to discover the perpetrators of the local murders, De Niro appears to be absolutely sincere though with this specific accentuation of "come see me", where De Niro couldn't be more inviting. His big speech to the support of the whole nation in the moment, De Niro's eyes glisten with optimism, hope and affection. He seems like a man who genuinely, absolutely wants to help. And historical spoiler alert, I guess, Hale is the mastermind behind all the murders.
De Niro's choice in respect to the outward Hale and the inward Hale though is I think the genius of this performance. Because here's the thing, within the way De Niro expresses this it isn't entirely a facade, even though Hale is actively advocating for the murder of multiple people. Therefore part of him is most definitely lying in terms of the wanting the killers found, however De Niro doesn't entirely portray the hospitality of Hale as completely false. Partly this is because the man is truly disarming as he speaks and you wouldn't immediately suspect him so there is the completely successful ruse as such, but De Niro I think gets to something more insidious within Hale through this approach. De Niro does not portray sadism in Hale towards the people he's killing, in fact he only shows them warmth, and for me the twisted brilliance of his performance is that Hale isn't lying entirely. Rather De Niro presents a man who loses nothing in his warmth, but the warmth isn't something that keeps him from orchestrating the murders. De Niro though presents Hale as treating them as merely obstacles to him, and as such their deaths are meaningless, while also not having the meaning of even hate to them. He can say he "loves" them even, even as he says it's time for them to die, because De Niro accentuates that it is all just merely something that needs to be done for his benefit, which is merely the profit from the murders. There isn't a single scene where De Niro voices a hint of venom to the natives, he saves that for Ernest, but rather leaves it to Hale's actions. And as odd as this seems, Hale is truly vile by showing a man who is entirely detached from it. De Niro expresses in his performance that killing the natives is something to happen, Hale has no ill-feeling towards them, but he also has no ill-feeling towards their deaths either. It is just merely a step in his horrible plan.
De Niro's choice to create a charismatic villain for the piece not only is dynamic, it is particularly essential because so much of the film he needs to carry the scenes featuring Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio's very mannered performance falls into the category of many of his Scorsese directed performances, which is going off on the wrong end. I actually find that DiCaprio's performance, while in itself not ideal, is made worse by his influence overall on the film which is centering on Ernest Burkhart as the main character. And while I had reservations the first time in this regard, it was only exacerbated the second time around for two main reasons. One, there isn't anything interesting about Ernest. You can have a fool as a main character, but you either need a fool with more going on or just briefer runtime. Ernest is a big nothing, whose motivation is simple and his conflict feels frankly false. What does make this even less ideal is DiCaprio's performance, and I'll say this is a constant for me with lesser DiCaprio performances, where his more obnoxious choices grate on me the more times I watch the film. As I can kind of ignore it the first time but it is hard to keep ignoring his needlessly attempted showboating the second time, similar was my response to Gangs of New York and Shutter Island. And DiCaprio's choices though just stick out for the worse, in just his over the top choices to make Ernest as a cretin, with a ridiculous grumpy cat face of conflict for no reason, and an overdone accent to make sure you know he's playing this low class man of the west and not Leonardo DiCaprio. But in a film where just about everyone else feels just so authentic, he sticks out like the sorest of thumbs, until I guess he gets to share a scene with Brendan Fraser. And just spending time with Ernest became even more of an arduous time, because he's just not interesting on any level, and even the attempt to show the pull between loyal nephew and husband, just feels forced. I didn't mind getting through it thanks to nearly every other element, which I still love, but having to go through his pointless tomfoolery the first time was when I did think, "this could be trimmed down" but over again, made me really think "most of this could be cut". And as a film that is just as an overall tapestry of the murders with different characters of equal importance, that could've been the complete masterpiece, as opposed to this film which has qualities of a masterpiece but is not one.
Anyway back to De Niro, and the reason I gave that brief review is in part to praise De Niro more, because his performance kept me engaged in his scenes with DiCaprio, almost in part as it was very easy to enjoy his scenes of being semi-comical in his berating. And I will say I do quite enjoy his "now don't swear on your children, it makes you sound foolish", which is a well realized bit of pitch black comedy on his part. And it is in his scenes with DiCaprio where De Niro does implement the true evil of Hale, though still not again not quite in the way you might expect. As we return to the calculating stare in his scene of greeting Ernest, and it is in his eyes where De Niro expresses the truth of Hale. As part of his eyes isn't again looking with hate, towards Osage, but rather this chilling sense of eager opportunity. The true full classic De Niro intensity, is largely towards Ernest's idiocy, where we see the vile evil of Hale. Although De Niro carries this, most strikingly often in just a slight switch of his look to a glare that speaks of the true killer nature of the man. De Niro implements this intensity only in the moments where something may threaten his eventual profit. De Niro there reveals the truth to Hale's want which is purely for the greed of it, and it is only when something gets in the way do we see the real menace of De Niro. A menace that he presents with the expected ease, though specifically weaponized and you do see the hate in the man, though the hate for any idiocy that will get in his way. And what De Niro essentially crafts is a businessman who is treating this whole affair as a business agreement, and much like a businessman, everything is smiles and joyful good feeling until something gets in the way of profits. As even when dealing with the FBI investigating him, De Niro brings that graceful charisma who eagerly greets the agent, though still with the angle of working the man as he ponders if there's anyone he might be able to influence behind the investigation. De Niro though showing a man working a deal, and working a deal with outsiders, the man must always put on the good face of business. I love the sequence of him going to his own arrest, and frankly I think De Niro kind of purposefully evokes his 70's cohort Robert Duvall in the specific way he carries himself in the scene, with this generous spirit as he essentially laughs off the murder charge as an impossibility. As do I his final conversation with Ernest, where Ernest says he's going to testify against him, and I'll credit it as one of the few scenes that DiCaprio doesn't detract from by easing back a little bit. De Niro is outstanding in the moment because it is a true blend within his performance. As De Niro shows the greatest struggle in Hale to maintain his face in semi-public of the investigator, where his face is hardened with that intensity but he's just barely maintaining cordiality, though explaining with chilling disregard that people will just forget about his crimes. And ending with his final words being back to the pure jovial face of the man in his delivery of "I love you son" as one final "sell" to change Ernest's mind. And this is yet another great performance by Robert De Niro, though one that again truly took me by surprises with some of his choices, and wholly won me over with each of them them, in his disturbing portrait of a man whose business is genocide.
33 comments:
Louis: You wrote that De Niro did not receive an Oscar nomination in the first line.
Louis: Rating for DiCaprio.
Thoughts on the screenplay.
Unlike the last review, which surprised me quite a bit, there was no surprise with this rating.
EVERYWHERE I've looked, it's De Niro and GladStone who make the movie. I'll also admit, I'm mostly in the dark with this film and it's plot, and I intend to preserve that for my intial viewing.
While it is a bit disappointing to hear DiCaprio soured you even more on the film, I'm glad it didn't affect your view of De Niro in the slightest. His final threat from the jail cell is the most chilling he's been since the dress scene in Goodfellas.
I wouldn't be surprised if the rumours of DiCaprio apparently feeling a little self-conscious in the presence of Marty and De Niro did reflect on his performance after all, but then again, that was a rumour.
Emi: I wouldn’t be surprised if they were true, “self-conscious” was the first word that kept coming to my mind as I was watching his performance, which was so odd to me because I never would have accused him of that before, even his performances I didn’t like.
Quite surprised at how much you really didn't care for DiCaprio - as someone who tends to be more negative on him than you, I'd probably stick around a 4 for him.
Though I actually agree with you on how having Ernest at the centre of the narrative isn't the most dynamic choice (in fact, having William Hale and Mollie as co-leads maybe...or an entirely pure ensemble?). Initially I was thinking maybe Jesse Plemons would've been a better choice as Ernest but it seems clear that maybe that was a problem to begin with.
Anyway, glad you loved De Niro as much as I expected you would (maybe a little bit more). Have no reservation in considering it one of his very best performances.
I did kind of get the ball rolling on the anti-Leo train, huh?
The issue is the whole script got rewritten because Leo wanted to play Ernest because Scorsese and Leo thought Tom a white didn't have any interesting qualities and Ernest gave Leo the chance to 'act'. The irony is Leo is completely acted of the screen by De a Niro and Gladstone.
I think Ernest could have worked if he and Plemons swapped roles. Or if Alden Ehrenreich played the role.
I still think DiCaprio is effective, although maybe I won't on rewatch, I don't know. Regardless, I do feel he maybe shouldn't have been the focus so much.
THAT SAID, yes, De Niro is masterful here once again. One of my favourite moments of his is when Ernest mentions Mollie is pregnant.
Rooting for De Niro to win this one and I fully agree with you on DiCaprio. That performance is pretty much like Paul Muni in Black Fury, but 90 years later.
Almost forgot to mention this: I really like the picture you used here, the light reflecting off Hale's glasses makes him look even more menacing.
Michael:
There's also the reported tidbit at De Niro being not too impressed by DiCaprio's attempts at improvisation, which kind of supports that idea.
Luke:
2
The screenplay is the weakest aspect of the film, other than certain Oscar winning actors, but it is not a bad screenplay. Adapting the book was not a small challenge to begin with for the scope of the piece and amount of specifics therein, and as such it is largely successful. But one can't discuss this without discussing DiCaprio's influence on the film, which was to purposefully force Ernest to be a bigger part of the film. The problem is, the character wasn't nearly as interesting as DiCaprio felt he was, exacerbated eventually by his whole performance, and I'll agree with Robert, I think if another more authentic actor had been in the role it might've worked as such. And here's the thing I don't think these scenes are bereft of quality, and not just the scenes with De Niro/Hale. So let's talk about Ty Mitchell for a moment, a rancher not a professional actor, but he couldn't be more authentic. And the thing it isn't just his face or his demeanor, his portrayal of the genuine kinship drinking with the man he's been paid to kill, then his seeming regret and guilt as he tries to get rid of the gun, is frankly more compelling than anything we get from Ernest. And the writing is on point there in having this bit of realized character in this seemingly small moment, but that performance as just a man who seems ripped out of time is as important, and against DiCaprio's pantomiming which is the antithesis of that. And if everyone had that same authenticity perhaps the Ernest centered version could've worked. As there is something within the idea of the tapestry of parasitic infection within the screenplay by getting into the details of each plot, each crime, each murder of the Osage, as this complex cesspool which we see in Hale, the corrupt doctors, the funeral director, the banker and so on. There's something within the world of the Osage with the details of the period, and that is where I think a major criticism comes and I'd say in part it's fair, in another part I push back. The latter involves Mollie, where some have criticized that she isn't active enough in the second half when she is just being poisoned, and that would require a complete rewrite of history, as Mollie was being poisoned to death during that period, in fact her one action of going to Washington, that part is made up, however going that much further from the history would change the nature of the piece. And I think the moments they do give Mollie throughout this sequence are remarkable as written. I will say there was potentially an alternative low budget version of this film that is purely from Mollie's perspective and would basically be like Alfred Hitchcock's suspicion, where it would be more of the psychological horror aspect, and I will say I think that could've been a different kind of masterpiece. BUT I do love a lot of the material that could only exist in the depicting the expansion, but in this way, I could argue maybe go further beyond the book, and here's where I think criticism is valid, give more time to the tribal council members, let's get to know more of them, and quite frankly probably a mini-series would've been the best approach to kind of serve all aspects of this story. As even the elements removed from the book, such as Tom White being warden to Hale in prison, Ernest going to see his children after prison, the current state of the Osage as people, ALL are meaty elements that you could've spent time with. The screenplay as it does so a lot right in its chosen perspective, and maybe even the focus on Ernest could've worked as previously stated if the performance was better, and is a somewhat successful attempt into realizing this material if far from perfect. Something in way I think is kind of admitted by the film itself in the radio scene, which I've come to like more as the meta-commentary both on the idea of the film itself but also the way such horror becomes just a footnote as entertainment at a certain point.
I agree, he was brilliant. Loved him and the film.
I'm surprised you didn't like Leo, I didn't think he was perfect but I liked his performance. However, I've only seen it once, so maybe those flaws are more evident after watching the film more times.
I haven't seen KOTFM yet. Have missed out on a lot of films this year, due to turmoil in my life atm. Nonetheless, from the glimpses that I have seen of this performance on socials, it just seems to be a pitch perfect, and is a great addition to legendary resume of an All Time Great.
Even with all the negative reviews, I still think DiCaprio's performance in Killers is much better than Don't Look Up.
I believe he will overcome it in the next PTA film.
Louis, your ranking of the members of KOTFM's cast that were nominated for the SAG Ensemble? (So that's Tantoo Cardinal, Robert De Niro, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brendan Fraser, Lily Gladstone, John Lithgow, and Jesse Plemons)
Louis: Was DiCaprio a 2 for you on your first watch as well?
Louis: Thoughts on the Monkey Man trailer.
One of my favourite performances from De Niro.
And what did you think of the Spaceman trailer.
I hope working with PTA, gives DiCaprio a new outlook on his craft. Even though, DiCaprio might not even need it at this point, as his presence fulfills all the box office goals of the movie, that he is starring in. But if he really gets self conscious in presence of other great actors and genuinely wants to get better at his craft, then PTA collaboration can help him a LOT in terms of attaining discipline in his dramatic performances.
I am aware that a lot of the people loved his performance in this movie too, and their feelings are just as valid as the critics', but working with PTA can help him further refine his abilities as an actor.
Louis: Your thoughts on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABud3HvoIdw&pp=ygUaVGhlIEhhbWlsbCB3aG8gbGF1Z2hzIHRuYmE%3D
Louis: What do you think of Plemons as Burkhart?
Also, thoughts on these double features?
The Holdovers/The Browning Version
Barbie/A.I.
KOTFM/Foxcatcher
Anonymous:
Ask again in results.
Marcus:
He was at best a very generous 3 probably a 2.5, as the choices I thought were questionable but like Shutter Island and Gangs they truly grated on me subsequently.
Luke:
Patel acting and directing as John Wick, sure. Looks compelling enough and don't think there's a greatest testament than what a beard can do than with Patel.
Looks like it could either be great or fall apart. I do like that Sandler is continuing to try dramatic turns after his Uncut Gems praise, Dano as a creepy spider certainly is effective from that glimpse and visually looks interesting.
8000's:
Much better looking, beady eyed Joker was always such a strange choice.
Tony:
A much better choice as even in the reduced role of Tom White, Plemons has that authenticity I'm talking about and that could've worked wonders.
The Holdovers/The Browning Version is perfection as in many ways The Holdovers is a riff on it to begin with.
Barbie/A.I. also makes sense a journey of self-discovery, right down to the less than ideal tonal shifts.
KOTFM/Foxcatcher, I can see this one as they both have an undercurrent of dread, depicting a real life tragedy and an ensemble with an overly mannered lead.
My problem with him in Gangs of New York is more just that he's boring.
Matt:
He is indeed boring, and no it's not a mannered performance, but I do find his failed attempt at quiet intensity grating....and laughable compared to Day-Lewis.
Louis: Your choices for double features for the Best Picture nominees this year?
DeNiro’s eighth nominated performance the year he has his eighth child in his eighth decade of being alive. He is living his best life.
The Holdovers made me think of “The Paper Chase”.
Tahmeed:
American Fiction/Tootsie
Anatomy of a Fall/Fallen Idol
Barbie/Poor Things
The Holdovers/The Browning Version (Can't top that)
Killers of the Flower Moon/The Act of Killing
Maestro/Tar (aka the good version)
Oppenheimer/Amadeus
Past Lives/Brief Encounter
Poor Things/Bride of Frankenstein
The Zone of Interest/The Human Condition Part I (Just a guess)
Thoughts on these Other Double Features?
Oppenheimer/JFK
Past Lives/ Slumdog Millionaire
Zone of Interest/ Dogville
American Fiction/ Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Poor Things/ Metropolis
Anatomy of a Fall/Mystic River
Maestro/Jobs (2013)
Oppenheimer/JFK - (Stylistically of course.)
Past Lives/ Slumdog Millionaire - (Don't quite see it, I get the three phases of life, but still not quite.)
Zone of Interest/ Dogville - (Sounds like it potentially.)
American Fiction/ Can You Ever Forgive Me? - (Hmm I get it in the literature world, and false, but don't quite see enough in common beyond that.)
Poor Things/ Metropolis - (Most definitely as the created woman.)
Anatomy of a Fall/Mystic River - (I guess a bit in terms of the Dave Boyle.)
Maestro/Jobs (2013) - (Well haven't seen Jobs so can't comment.)
Post a Comment