—
In the realm of cinematic adaptations, the eternal question often arises: Is it better to watch the movie or read the book? In the case of “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the answer is a resounding “yes.” Whether you choose to experience David Grann’s gripping nonfiction book or Martin Scorsese’s film adaptation, you’ll find a vastly different yet equally enthralling narrative.
Christopher Cote, a language consultant who contributed to the making of the film, praised Scorsese’s work, yet noted that “this film isn’t made for an Osage audience.” This statement brings us to a pivotal discussion: the depiction of the Osage people in this cinematic endeavor.
Set in the 1920s, the story revolves around the Osage people of rural Oklahoma, who faced alarming mortality rates due to their oil-rich status. David Grann’s book presents this as a whodunit mystery, as the community grapples with a series of deaths. In contrast, Martin Scorsese’s movie takes a more direct approach, revealing from the outset that white men married Osage women, only to slaughter their families and inherit their wealth. This distinction shapes the narrative’s tone and complexity.
During an interview at the film’s Los Angeles premiere, Christopher Cote acknowledged Scorsese’s commendable representation of the Osage people. However, he expressed a wish that the story were told from the perspective of Lily Gladstone’s character, Mollie Burkhart. This speaks to the intricacies of storytelling and the impact of different perspectives on a narrative’s depth.
“Killers of the Flower Moon” provides an opportunity to explore the nuances of adaptation. While Grann’s book keeps readers guessing, the film offers a subtler, more explicit portrayal of the events. It’s important to note that the movie’s subtlety isn’t surprising given its substantial runtime of 3½ hours.
The film adaptation engages viewers from the very beginning with a clear, albeit unsettling, premise. The ruthless ambition of the white men, intent on marrying Osage women to claim their wealth, looms over the entire narrative. The tension and suspense build, keeping the audience immersed in the unfolding tragedy. This bold approach allows Scorsese to convey the stark brutality and oppression faced by the Osage people.
In contrast, Grann’s book lures readers into a maze of uncertainty. It unfolds like a detective story, unveiling the secrets behind the Osage murders in a more suspenseful and investigative manner. The gradual revelation of facts and the gradual building of the case adds layers of intrigue to the narrative.
The differing approaches in the book and the film highlight the adaptational challenge. Scorsese chose to amplify the palpable tension and the stark depiction of historical atrocities. He made the harrowing history of the Osage people more accessible to a broad audience, ensuring that the impact of these events remains seared into the viewer’s memory.
As the Osage consultants who worked on the film weigh in on its portrayal of their community, it’s evident that this adaptation has stirred important conversations about representation and storytelling. “Killers of the Flower Moon” serves as a reminder that the choices made in adapting a story can significantly affect how it is perceived and understood by the audience.
In conclusion, “Killers of the Flower Moon” stands as an exemplary case of the adaptation dilemma. While David Grann’s book presents a gripping mystery, Martin Scorsese’s film takes a more direct and visceral approach, shedding light on the ruthless crimes perpetrated against the Osage people. The film’s distinct perspective and subtle narrative nuances provoke meaningful discourse about the depiction of historical events and the power of adaptation in storytelling. The question of whether it’s better to read the book or watch the movie ultimately depends on one’s desire for suspense, clarity, and the appreciation of differing viewpoints.
