Reservation Dogs Star Calls Out Killers of the Flower Moon for ‘Horrific’ Violence Against Native Characters
Martin Scorsese’s new movie Killers of the Flower Moon is getting serious Oscar buzz — but Reservation Dogs star Devery Jacobs is not a fan.
The Native actress spelled out her criticisms of the film, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, in a lengthy thread on social media on Monday. The film centers on a series of murders among the Osage tribe in Oklahoma in the 1920s, and Jacobs called it “painful, grueling, unrelenting and unnecessarily graphic… Imagine the worst atrocities committed against [your] ancestors, then having to sit [through] a movie explicitly filled [with] them, [with] the only respite being 30 [minute] long scenes of murderous white guys talking about/planning the killings.”
TVLine has reached out to Scorsese and Apple for comment.
Jacobs did applaud the performance of lead actress Lily Gladstone (“Give Lily her goddamn Oscar”), but noted that “each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth.” She added: “I get the goal of this violence is to add brutal shock value that forces people to understand the real horrors that happened to this community, BUT — I don’t feel that these very real people were shown honor or dignity in the horrific portrayal of their deaths.”
She admitted that seeing film critics and fan celebrate the movie “makes my stomach hurt” and wanted to emphasize the fact that Native people “exist beyond our grief, trauma [and] atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy [and] love are way more interesting [and] humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us.” (Killers of the Flower Moon is set to debut later this year on Apple TV+ following its current theatrical run.)
Jacobs starred as Elora on FX/Hulu’s Reservation Dogs, an easygoing comedy about a tight-knit group of Native teens in Oklahoma. It wrapped up an acclaimed three-season run last month. (Check out our post-finale chat with series creator Sterlin Harjo here.) Jacobs was nominated for a Critics’ Choice Television Award this year for best actress in a comedy; she also served as a writer and director on the series.
Does Jacobs have a point about Scorsese’s new movie? Hit the comments and share your thoughts on the controversy.
“Lashes out” yes thank you TVline for contributing to the angry woman of color stereotype. She shared her honest feelings as a Native person who also works in the entertainment industry, she did not “lash out”
This is the same narrative Viola Davis used to bash the Help because it “didn’t properly rapresent the point of view of black women in Mississippi in the 60es”. In both cases, rappresentation of “POC” was not the goal of the movie.
“We exist beyond our grief, trauma….. our pride, joy, culture are more interesting”: I’m sure of it, and I welcome more projects about that, but once again, that’s not what the movie is trying to do.
Yes. The fact the film was all about how White People felt about the stealing and massacre of Native People yet again is her point. The exploitation of it all.
She has a point. The reality is the film probably would never have been made without Martin Scorsese or the big name cast. Film is an artform but its ultimately a business. Maybe this will inspire her or other native filmmakers to tell their own story.
Hence why White people are making money on the horrors they inflicted on the Natives, one more time, without really making them part of the story.
They had a lot of Osage consultants working with them so they could tell a fuller/ more accurate story. The Osage tribe leader was a producer on the film. Ultimately this is a work of fiction based on a book – its not a documentary. If you feel so strongly then you should donate to fund projects spearheaded by native filmmakers. If everyone that agrees with Devery donated that would go a long way.
What are those Osage consultants going to do? Not take the work? They can pass on Hollywood money? Every Osage person Hollywood approaches is going to be in a position to pass? You’re aware of the economic challenges faced by American Indian communities, right?
.
I’m not arguing that Scorsese and co don’t have the artistic right to tell any story they want to. It’s not his fault nor his responsibility that other types of stories are underrepresented. It honestly isn’t. I am just pointing out that the involvement of “Osage consultants” in the production indemnifies the production from exactly zero criticism, whether I agree with that criticism or not.
I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me but again its better to fund a film/book from the actual Osage than to continuously post your opinion on a tv website. Its better they were somewhat involved than if they weren’t. Its better they were compensated in some way than if they were left out. Its a movie from Hollywood – a place built on exploitation. Hollywood has no morals and no responsibility other than to make money. Make or break them with your dollar because thats all they care about.
The Osage consultants who worked on the film said this week they were disappointed in the way the film turned out to be.
Since when is a well-founded and well-argued voice of disapproval “lashing out”?
I agree that there is a lack of historical movies portraying anything other than the horrific times certain races went through although I don’t agree with banning movies that show those horrific times.
Jacobs said: ” Imagine the worst atrocities committed against [your] ancestors, then having to sit [through] a movie explicitly filled [with] them, [with] the only respite being 30 [minute] long scenes of murderous white guys talking about/planning the killings.”
Don’t have to imagine, as I have seen multiple films about the Holocaust which depicted the genocide of millions of innocent people. While excrutiatingly painful to watch, such events should never be sanitized in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of some viewers. We should never whitewash history, whether in films, books, or spoken narratives.
I don’t think you can really compare the two, or at least talk about them without the surrounding cultural lens over how they’re both treated.
There are hundreds of celebrated films about the holocaust from the pov of its victims, and entire nations recognize and teach the history of what happened. Whereas there’s less than a dozen movies that actually deal with Native American history, nearly all of which are lead by white actors, and an entire holiday celebrating the guy who first basically started it off (imagine celebrating Hitler Day) not to mention revisionist history… I mean, if you don’t like holocaust denialism, get ready for “the native people gave up their land and moved away peacefully” and that’s if the history books even cover it.
So yeah, you might be ok with such depictions, but I’d imagine if the only depiction of the holocaust for decades was from the pov of Nazi’s with any Jewish roles being relegated to being thinly drawn characters existing solely to suffer and die, you might have a problem too
This is a really stupid take. Shows like Reservation Dogs and Rutherford Dogs show the positives of native culture. This movie shows the atrocities that white people have made against POC. It’s why it was important that the film also showed the Tulsa Race Riots. It’s perfect that this movie is being shown now during the rise in antisemitism. Like this person completely missed the mark. And the movie is called “KILLERS of the Flower Moon.” It focuses on the killers. That’s the story being told. Like why are you trying to brush America’s awful history under the rug? That’s what they’re trying to do in Florida. Dumb dumb take.
See Luke’s comment above for an explanation of why Jacobs criticized the movie.
Did you see the film? Literally the main thing my friends and I said was that Lily Gladstone was winning best actress. I don’t feel that she was thinly drawn.
I don’t feel that comparison is valid. How many films went into the atrocities to this extent? Normally natives are shown as caricatures. This wasn’t the case here at all.
Again, the take is bad.
Did you even read the article?
I was expecting more of the Osage culture (but glad we got some), and was surprised that we were starting off with several people already dead. And while Mollie was well fleshed out (and I agree/hope Lily Gladstone wins best actress and for that to be the only award for this movie), most of the other Osage members were not. Her sister Anna was a little, and they tried with Henry, but it felt like his characterization was suddenly shoehorned in. Like he was suddenly so different from who we met at the beginning and then didn’t really see/spend any time with for a long time.
There also needs to be a good reminder to everyone that criticism of something doesn’t mean it’s bad or shouldn’t be seen, it’s pointed out so that these things can be learned and improved upon in the future. And also so that people can be prepared for what they see when they go in.
At no point did she, or anyone say, movies like this should be banned or this period of time not shown.
She criticised the portrayal of the native characters and the gratuitous violence inflicted upon them.
Don’t assign your own imagined agenda to her words. Don’t conflate indigenous hardship with antisemitism (although both bigotry, they’re completely different in how they’re institutionalized, enacted and ignored. Aka my prev comment) and don’t act like these incredibly rare stories about Natives are somehow needed because they educate a white audience… especially when the 2 now concluded shows you named basically consist the entirety of postive representations of native culture (in 100+ years of the industry)
“Lashes out”? Wow, what a loaded phrase to use. Are you just trying to get people to click on the article?
Just a really disappointing title and Twitter post.
Appreciate the improved title.
Well, I disagree with her. I think the only misstep here was letting Scorsee make it verses a Native American. But nobody will care what she thinks especially when award season rolls around.
Arguably, the film you speak of never would have been made or at least gotten the budget it received without Scorsese (or another big-name white director) attached, unfortunately.
Exactly! This point was made by an Osage language consultant that worked on the film. He lamented it wasn’t made for or by his people.
Of course she has a point, will not be surprised if whites don’t mount a boycott where they feel white sensibilities are being unfairly targeted to have it removed yet to hear anyone speak on giving back the land nor oil rights only in America
Thanks, but no thanks. We don’t need you, Devery Jacob’s, getting sensitive for the rest of us. Yes, bad stuff happens to our native women but it’s his(Scorsese) style and the way it was written which is from a book previously written. Closing your eyes and wishing it away won’t help anyone.
Yikes, this post screams “you know what” privilege.
Black people have been through this countless times with all the slave movies that were made and still being made to this day. Black people were more than just slaves during that era but “they” (the powers that be in hollywood) only focused on the degrading, humiliation, torture, heartbreak, violence, insults etc, black people hand to face at the hands of white people. Even if a few black characters got their justice in the end in some of these movies it still left a bitter taste in you mouth because of what they had to suffer through to get there. They won’t teach the true history of what happened back then in schools but they don’t mind making these degrading movies showing only one version of how black people lived.
No, she doesn’t have a point. The purpose of the movie is so that others understand what was done/has happened to its fullest extent. If it makes her uncomfortable? It has done its job.
Also, they aren’t her people. She isn’t Osage, she is Mohawk. They have nothing to do with each other. That’s like saying French people are my people, when I’m German and Norwegian. She has no place speaking on the matter. They had multiple Osage consultants through the entirety of filming. “White” isn’t a race, it is skin pigmentation.
Many tribes in America, before Europeans arrived, were constantly at war with each other, or knew nothing of each other. Her tribe and the Osage would’ve essentially never met until modern times, if even then. To sit there and speak for them like she has a right to say anything is beyond arrogant.
Actually for the most part, all Europeans are lumped together in America because most assimilated. While people like to say they are Italian, Irish or French most of that knowledge comes from family folklore or Ancestry.com.
She is speaking as an indigenous person, another lumped together group. Europeans spent centuries fighting each other before they took their fights global. What does indigenous tribes fighting each other have to do with anything? Also do you have some kind of advance degree in indigenous studies? How do you know the tribes never met or never would have met? Presumptuous maybe? One thing we do know is lots of history has been erased and misinterpreted. Not even gonna touch the arrogance comment. Maybe we can bring this down a few notches.
A lot of the Osage Consultants on the movie said they had trouble watching the final film and felt that it was not made for their people.
As someone that has seen the movie they went out of their way to make you sympathetic to DiCaprios character(he’s disgusting and should be portrayed that way) and spend very little time on and of the Native characters outside of torturing and slaughtering them or seeing the grieve. This movie and other like it should only be made by Native people and unfortunately that’s highly unlikely to happen in the world we live in today. Or at least on such a big budget with such a PR push.
The movie doesn’t make DiCaprio sympathetic at all unless you’re missing the large fact that he’s a lying sociopath throughout. It’s a false veneer which was the entire point
I don’t entirely agree. For example **SPOILERS**
When his uncle is trying to get him to sign the thing that’ll basically make it so they can kill him and get the money… there was a lot of time spent on that and it felt like the movie was telling you to root against him signing it. It’s hard when it’s a bad guy v bad guy scene, but the way he was getting so close to understand that he shouldn’t sign it, made it feel like the crowd should root for him to get there. There were a couple moments like this.
Quite a few Osage consultants and actors here present a far more positive if definitely nuanced view:
https://www.today.com/popculture/movies/killers-of-the-flower-moon-osage-nation-members-react-rcna120899
“That’s like saying French people are my people, when I’m German and Norwegian.”
.
Really poor analogy when, umm, the French and German peoples are both descended from the Franks. And there’s not much difference between the Gaelic peoples — the Irish, Scots and Welsh, either, however much as some of them may like to say otherwise.
.
When it comes to the US’s holocaust against all the Native American tribes, I think it’s safe to say as a non-NA that even tribes that were once hostile against each other have a lot in common.
I am a German and would never call the French “my people”.
Of course you wouldn’t, they’re French and you’re German. You’re quarrelling siblings.
She’s not wrong.
Yes, she is.
The film is supposed to be uncomfortable and unflinchingly show the entitled crimes of the white killers against the Osage women and community. The white characters, apart from 1 in the first few hours, are all painted as violent sociopaths engineering the murders for their own greed. It’s a microcosm for how white colonialists systematically exterminated the indigenous population for personal gain – broadly for land and territory historically but for the oil money specifically in the Osage community.
To say that the white characters got ‘more complexity and depth’ is to miss the point: they aren’t deep characters. They’re two faced jackals who are scheming to kill and the “complexity” is their false face as they further their agenda of death and greed.
People are saying she has the wrong take or criticizing her opinion, but at the end of the day it is her opinion and she has every right to it. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, just like she doesn’t have to agree with anyone else’s. She is speaking from her perspective as a Native/Indigenous person.
There’s such a thing as a stupid opinion.
This isn’t a stupid opinion. Even if you ultimately disagree, it’s a well-thought out commentary that deserves to be heard and discussed. Opinions aren’t “stupid” just because you disagree.
And that is your opinion. I don’t have to agree with it, just like you chose to disagree with what I said. Hence the point of my comment it is an opinion and you don’t have to agree or disagree with it.
I agree DEVERY,but the point of how violent these crimes were needed to be shown in order to show the true horror of these awful crimes.
Isn’t she half white?
Funny how people always identify as the half that they can play the victim with.
She identifies with that half because that’s the half society treats her as and categorizes her as, not the other half.
You misread my comment. I was responding to one aspect of the review, that the writer decried the film’s brutality and found it hard to watch. I replied that brutal and horrific historical events, like this and the Holocaust, should never be depicted through a fuzzy lens. We cannot whitewash or minimize our history, and it is important that the films, books, and spoken narratives about these deplorable events, no matter how jarring, should be as realistic as possible. .
“an easy going comedy” – Are you serious? Three seasons covered suicide, child abandonment and deaths- yes PLURAL. The show had humorous tones, but I would NOT call it easy going or straight up comedy, not one bit. I cried more than I laughed during this show. Remove a few episodes of non sense (Fish cult, eh hem) and I’d say it was a spectacular coming of age drama or dark humor.
Isn’t the point of the movie to memorialize the horrific murder of the Native Americans by the White Man for oil profits? This would be the same as (sorry) the Jewish people complaining against Schindlers List or Life is Great (?) or the Diary oif Anne Frank. What about Little Big Man or Dances With Wolves then?
Except these atrocities-happened. Would she rather people just forgot, never mentioned, acted as though nothing ever happened to them? Would she rather they just “gloss” over it?
I have to say she voiced my thoughts sitting in the theater. While I still was able to enjoy moments of the film, I felt tonally something was off. Maybe it was my theater experience but given how bleak the story is, I was a little uncomfortable with my audience laughing even if it was at the expense of the white characters. Seems like because of the trailer’s tone, people were acting as if this was a Wolf of Wall Street type of film.
The performances were great and I know Scorsese’s intentions are good too but man was I disappointed in the lack of perspective of the Osage people.
Victim mentality, the hallmark of her generation.
I agree with her. Just imagine if 12 Years a Slave were written from the perspective of Michael Fassbender or Benedict Cumberbach’s characters instead of Chiwetel. That would be morally reprehensible.
Stories are told from the perspective of the villain all the time. The Joker, for instance, to delve into the superhero world for a minute. Hannibal (the movie, I haven’t seen the TV series) is told more from Hannibal Lecter’s point of view than Clarice Starling’s. American Psycho, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Scorsese’s own Wolf of Wall Street. The Godfather trilogy. The list goes on.
I haven’t seen the movie yet and am planning on going to. My impression from both having read the book and read the reviews so far makes it feel to me like Jacobs is underestimating Gladstone and her character’s importance to both the real events and the story of the movie and thus, her attempt to compliment Gladstone strikes me as being half-hearted when it isn’t a little bit backhanded.
.
Also, a number of her concerns about portraying the NA victims as people rather than types are expressed in the book, and filmmakers adapt books because they’re inspired by the books and are hoping that doing the book justice will inspire at least part of the audience to go read it, too. Even at three-and-a-half hours and even if I wasn’t familiar with Scorcese’s work, I wouldn’t be going into this movie expecting to see an Altmanesque character-based take on the events, which probably would have only addressed the crimes obliquely, if at all.
That wouldn’t be a helpful take on the case for those who don’t know about it.
Yep