Jade Bahr

^Maybe I'm getting old but a young female adult using the term "bae" referring to a 49 year old strange man is really cringe to me. Robbie Robertson’s Scorsese Score Honored at 2023 Hollywood Music in Media Awards (...) The late Robbie Robertson won score – feature film for his score for Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon. Robertson died in August at age 80. This was the 11th and final collaboration between Scorsese and Robertson; the film is dedicated to the Canadian rock music legend.

So the fact Leo isn't talking about Titanic like a decent human being since uhm 1998 -a movie which isn't bad at all nor is his role Jack Dawson like maybe Kissing Booth 1 2 3 or Twilight 1 2 3 4 5 (still by far not the worst franchise out there)- makes him what? The biggest crybaby in town? Do you guys think he's also refusing all the money this movie is still making? That would be at least a consistent rejection lol Jacob Elordi is a cliché Big year for Jacob Elordi. He is currently earning solid reviews for his performance as Elvis in Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla and, as just mentioned in the previous post about Margot Robbie, he has a supporting role in Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn, also a possible contender this award season. Jacob was at the premiere as part of the Saltburn team last night just a couple of days after the release of his GQ cover and interview. One of the big headlines coming out of his profile is what he had to say about The Kissing Booth series, the Netflix movies that opened him up to an audience of primarily girls and women. Up until this year, that’s what Jacob has been known for: The Kissing Booth and then, of course, Euphoria. Interestingly Jacob doesn’t say much about Euphoria in the GQ piece, but he does talk some sh-t about The Kissing Booth: “I didn’t want to make those movies before I made those movies,” he says. “Those movies are ridiculous. They’re not universal. They’re an escape.” I mean, it’s not like I disagree with him because The Kissing Booth movies are, indeed, terrible. But it’s his tone, it’s the utter disdain and the sanctimony – because what he’s basically saying is that he was always too good for The Kissing Booth. It’s sh-tting on the thing that gave him his start, that opened up more opportunities. When it’s pointed out to Jacob that these are often the choices that actors make at the beginning of their careers that can lead them to the work that’s more meaningful, the “one for them, one for me” approach, this was his response: “That one’s a trap as well. Because it can become 15 for them, none for you. You have no original ideas and you’re dead inside. So it’s a fine dance,” he replies. “My ‘one for them,’ I’ve done it.” I wonder though if Jacob knows this is a cliché. To be so dismissive of the so-called “silly” work that precedes the more serious roles. So many of the handsome white movie stars have walked this path, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Ryan Gosling to Robert Pattinson. They’ve all been quick in the immediate aftermath of the swoony stories they’ve starred in to distance themselves from those parts, seeming to go out of their way to take on weird and dark characters to assure the industry, and themselves, that they are more than just boyfriends and husbands, men you want to fall in love with. What also happens during this stage is that they don’t sound like they’re having any fun. Which is what my takeaway was when I was reading Jacob’s GQ profile. Even questions about fashion – after all, this was GQ Magazine, a men’s FASHION magazine – are met with overwrought answers. Jacob is known for his collection of designer handbags and this is very cool, I love seeing a man rock up in a great clutch. But he doesn’t want to go there either. If his predecessors are any indication, eventually he’ll grow out of this. We are, after all, living in the year of Kenergy, and perhaps the best performance of Ryan Gosling’s career in a movie that has him swaggering around in a fur coat and leather pants, LOL, doing dance numbers, revisiting his time on The Mickey Mouse Club. And in the process stealing the movie from Margot Robbie’s Barbie. Right now, Jacob Elordi can’t see this in his future. What Else? Have you seen what Kate Beckinsale wore to Leonardo DiCaprio’s birthday? Do you think she was trolling him? Affectionately, of course. Because she does have a sense of humour like that. And you know, despite the success of that film, and that it basically made him the blockbuster star he is today, he’s kind of embarrassed of it. Which is why Kate’s outfit is SO hilarious. (Glamour)

Also love this view of development of almost all of Leos characters in Scorsese movies. I am so fucking interested in Leo DiCaprio’s trajectory when it comes to playing characters in Scorsese movies, hear me out: Gangs of NY he’s really just a kid confronted with the possibility of violence, who’s tutored under the most violent man in his territory who also has the potential to become a father figure, but he says no, I need to do things my own way and find my own community – this is essentially a coming of age story. The Departed, to me, is a more streamlined and polished Gangs of NY, albeit set in modern day Boston – Leo’s character is still a young man who has to go undercover and do some horrible things, and he struggles with the guilt of doing those horrible things, but he’s a little older, a little more cynical, a little more mature – though he still flies off the handle, and is still young enough to be seen as a surrogate son by Costello. By Shutter Island, he’s a full adult, wife and kids (RIP), still struggling with violence and guilt but that’s as a result of having been in war and dealing with untreated PTSD. This is a much more adult story despite its pulpy exterior. He makes the choice to “die as a good man” as opposed to “live as a monster” – he’s taking agency for his actions. In The Departed he doesn’t get that choice (oof to those last 15 minutes.) Basically: he knows he’s done things that are irredeemable. He’s not a kid or kid-adjacent, he needs to take responsibility for his actions like an adult. And then there’s a shift to Wolf of Wall Street where Jordan Belfort knows he’s a piece of shit and revels in it. There’s no guilt. Crime is fun! When you’re rich enough you’re untouchable! Haha silly goofy sensory overload! We all get to be immature man-children and nobody’s going to stop us! Makes me wonder what it’s going to be like in Killers of the Flower Moon because he’s going to be playing a piece of shit yet again – but this won’t be silly goofy funtimes, this is going to be greed and colonization and manipulation. Source

That's interesting even though I don't think GONY was that bad. Messy especially in the 2nd half but I've seen much worse movies in my life lol Killers Of The Flower Moon Is The Good Version Of Gangs Of New York Martin Scorsese has long been interested in crime stories. His second feature film, 1972's "Boxcar Bertha," involves a group of bank thieves and freewheeling fugitives. His most recent feature, "Killers of the Flower Moon," made 51 years later, is about the very real organized murders of multiple Osage millionaires at the instruction of William King Hale in Oklahoma in the 1920s. Those who are only passingly familiar with Scorsese's work tend to describe him as a maker of gangster pictures, which isn't accurate. More than anything, when it comes to his crime stories, Scorsese seems interested in ethics-free outliers. He is interested in the kinds of people who have blithely detached from conventional morality, and whose bloody-minded drive toward law-flouting, cruelty, and murder became so widespread they came to color the character of America. In short, Scorsese is drawn to tales of sociopaths because, as he tells it, sociopaths shaped the nation. Scorsese, then, often aims to deconstruct American history by finding the dark impulses toward white supremacy and nativism lurking at the nation's heart. With "Flower Moon," Hale sought to siphon money out of the Osage Nation and into the pockets of interloping white men who deliberately infiltrated/married into the Nation at his instruction. 21 years ago, however, Scorsese made "Gangs of New York," a film about violent street toughs in the 1860s — many of them aggressively nativist and anti-immigrant — whose organization into gangs meshed directly into the formation of the city's local politics. A streak of anti-immigrant sentiment, Scorsese argues, was baked into New York from the start. The difference: "Killers of the Flower Moon" is excellently paced and focused. "Gangs of New York" is a massive, sprawling mess of a film. The former is the better version of the latter. The land of opportunity With both "Gangs" and "Flower Moon," Scorsese is deeply cynical about the state of America. In the former, the florid Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day-Lewis) fights to rule New York, in a very literal sense. He takes to the streets with knives and cudgels, hoping to beat to death anyone who would claim territory. He aims to rule over the local businesses, deliberately cheats in elections (he asks men to vote in local elections, then shaves them and has them return to vote again), and is chummy with local politicians and industrialists. Bill sees America as a land of opportunity, although he sees "opportunity" as a synonym for "exploitation." A new nation, he finds, is ripe for violent control and overseen by a-holes who are unduly fixated on notions of purity. Bill the Butcher wants to keep immigrants out, and make sure that American natives (not Indigenous American, but descendants from the thirteen colonies) are the only ones who are permitted to remain. Scorsese seems to argue that characters like Bill the Butcher had more to do with the founding of the nation than any document-signing "founding fathers." Likewise with William King Hale. In a revealing scene partway through "Flower Moon," Hale spanks his young charge Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio) for not sticking to his long-term plan to rob the Osage Nation of its wealth. He admonishes Ernest for forgetting the racist mandate that white men deserve all the money. Hale has presented himself as a hero of the Osage people, speaks their language, and organizes health and community services for them. At the same time, he is murdering its members and asking white men to marry Osage women in an attempt to inherit their oil wealth. A land overlooked by the law is a land ripe for opportunity/exploitation. Other similarities So it seems "Gangs" and "Flower Moon" are thematically similar. Both are films about the corrupt heart of America and the soil of exploitation in which the seeds of the nation were planted. Scorsese sees nativism and white supremacy as the central blight of modern American life and is using his historical dramas to explore their origins. "Gangs" and "Flower Moon" have other more practical similarities as well. They are both, structurally, about a younger, impressionable, not-entirely-innocent "clean slate" character played by Leonard DiCaprio who are both taken under the wings of charismatic, scheming supervillains. Both are about how the world of crime and violence is alluring for this type of character, despite any moral objections they may have (the Leo of "Flower Moon," however, is far more eager to participate than the Leo of "Gangs," who aims to exact a plot of revenge). Both were shot on artificially constructed streets, built specially for the film (although the "Gangs" set was a city unto itself). So why did "Flower Moon" emerge as so dramatically powerful while "Gangs" came across as unfocused, messy, and chaotic? A large part may have to do with the pacing. Although both films were edited by Scorsese's longtime collaborator. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese seems to have bitten off more than he could chew with "Gangs." The 2002 film was famously a long-gestating project for Scorsese — he discovered the story in a book way back in the 1970s — and the film feels like it had been in production for 30 years. Every single detail is overblown, every production decision overthought. It doesn't feel epic as it does ungainly. At 167 minutes, it feels like there's way too much of it. The evils of Harvey Weinstein "Killers of the Flower Moon," however, was just as massive a production. "Flower Moon" had double the budget of the $100 million "Gangs" and runs 206 minutes, a full 39 minutes longer than "Gangs." Perhaps the extra time allowed Scorsese to pace his film better, let scenes play out, and allow the intimate moments to breathe. "Flower Moon" feels more controlled and deliberate, while "Gangs" feels frantic and bleary. Scorsese may be looking at similar themes and stories, but "Flower Moon" is quite clearly the better-thought-out film. In his 60s, Scorsese was still butting heads with the system. In his 80s, he was clearer about the kind of film he wanted to make. Infamously, Scorsese hated making "Gangs of New York," which may have a lot to do with the film audiences saw. He and the film's producer, the monstrous Harvey Weinstein, had no end of creative differences, and Scorsese had to face the temperamental Weinstein's caprices on several occasions. The producer also pulled funds at the last minute, and Scorsese had to finish the film with a half million dollars of his own money. It would eventually come out that Scorsese nearly considered retiring altogether because of his bad Weisntein experience. He also admitted that he wasn't happy with his finished film. It's possible that Scorsese's bad "Gangs" experience galvanized him toward more creative control of his projects moving forward. Seven films later, with "Flower Moon," Scorsese seems to have finally retold the American story he wanted to with "Gangs." It's clear to see that the latter is the smoother, more thoughtful, and overall better movie.

I'm laughing right now because people at goldderby claimed for months Scorsese and Leo don't have the narrative to win anything with KOTFM against Nolan and now look at this Spielberg Calls Scorsese the Master of Cinema and ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ His “Masterpiece” On Monday night, two of the greatest filmmakers, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, sat down for a post-screening chat at the DGA after a “Killers of the Flower Moon” showing. The Playlist’s Gregory Ellwood has a nice recap now posted on the site. It must have been a real treat to witness these two cinematic giants on stage. Spielberg mentioned that John Ford and John Wayne made 14 films together, which means that Scorsese and Robert De Niro, who have collaborated on 11 films, need to collaborate on 3 more to tie that record. It’s a must. “It’s so amazing to see Bobby D and Leo D in this film together. I just realized Bobby D and Leo D,” Spielberg says after the audience laughs. “But this is your sixth collaboration with Leo. And you’re 11th with Bobby, and you’re only three films shy of tying the record with John Ford, who directed John Wayne 14 times. So, you can’t quit yet with Bobby, with Leo six films.” Spielberg ended the night by telling his old friend, “You are the master of our medium, and this is your masterpiece.” I won’t disagree with the notion that Scorsese is the “master” of the medium; he definitely is, as Francis Ford Coppola recently said, the “greatest living director.” It’s not even a competition. What other legendary filmmaker still alive today matches Scorsese’s towering filmography? I can’t think of any. Not too far behind are Spielberg, Coppola, Lynch, PTA, Malick, Coen, Eastwood, Allen, Polanski, Almodovar, Haneke. A dying breed of giants. Regardless, Oscar campaigning has begun, and Scorsese is most definitely going to be in competitive mode these next few months. He’s in it to win.

The Kyle sisters

The germans just love cruel history and Leo 😄 'Killers of the Flower Moon' Continues Its Slow Burn Journey at the Global Box Office Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro star in Martin Scorsese's latest film. Despite earning $137 million worldwide, the cost of producing Killers of the Flower Moon was $200 million, leaving a significant gap in profit. The film has performed well in international markets, particularly in France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Based on a true story, the movie explores how the Osage community in Oklahoma was targeted for their resources and the subsequent involvement of the FBI in solving the crimes committed against the Osage people. Killers of the Flower Moon continues a complicated journey at the global box office, with Martin Scorsese's latest project earning a total of $137 million across the world. While the number is impressive for a drama that runs over the course of 204 minutes, the amount is significantly smaller than the reported $200 million it cost to produce. Nevertheless, the film managed to score another $4.65 million at the domestic box office this weekend, with the total in the United States and Canada coming at around $59 million at the time of writing. Hopefully, the movie can become a strong contender during next year's awards season. When it comes to the international performance of Killer of the Flower Moon, territories where the project is holding strong on a week-to-week basis include France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. The $77 million the movie has earned in international markets proves that interest in Scorsese's story about how the Osage community was threatened for their money in 1919 has sparked interest around the world. In comparison with the filmmaker's recent projects, Silence earned $23 million at the worldwide box office, while The Wolf of Wall Street gathered an impressive $406 million. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Ernest Burkhart, a man who starts living with his uncle, William King Hale (Robert De Niro) after coming back from World War I. Hale comes up with a plan to strip the Osage community living in what is present-day Oklahoma of their vast resources, and it includes making Burkhart marry Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone). The union would eventually lead to a series of crimes that required direct intervention from the government, in a situation that served as the foundation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to screenrant Leos pay check was even higher. Leonardo DiCaprio's Killers of the Flower Moon Salary Reportedly Revealed (& It's A Martin Scorsese Record)

At LACMA Source

For those who wondered what Leos cake looked like *sponsored by Naomi (I guess Campbell?) Leonardo DiCaprio Showed PDA with Vittoria Ceretti at Birthday Bash Attended by JAY-Z and Beyoncé (Exclusive) Another sighting

^more of the pink socks or Marty lettin footloose his inner Ken

... or you will be banned for a lifetime 👇

It's really admirable how he's enjoying life undisguised no matter what 😄 I mean people can make fun of him as much as they want but this pure satisfaction of his life -and everything he has achieved so far- is something no one can take from him. For me he deserves every freakin happieness of this planet.

Not yet 50

Another upcoming KOTFM screening

credit to dicapriophotos

Lily worrying about the impact of the movie on native women.

Maybe not the most thrilling choice but I have to admit he was sexy in GA and still has the looks.

Strike/negotiations update

It seems people wonder the same. I'm also pretty sure if expensive movies like KOTFM and Napoleon bring no money at all, no oscars (hello Oppenheimer and several other strong contenders this year) and no new subscribers for apple they won't do such movies anymore. ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ Box Office: Is Martin Scorsese’s $200 Million Epic a Hit or Flop? “Killers of the Flower Moon,” Apple’s first major theatrical release, has generated $120 million globally after three weekends of release. Is that a good result for a movie backed by a streaming service? A terrible outcome for a glowingly received, $200 million crime epic directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro? Or somewhere in between? Everyone who follows the movie business has a different take, so parsing these ticket sales could take longer than the film’s daunting three-hour-and-26-minute run time. “I don’t see how its current global box office puts it in a position to turn a profit,” says Eric Handler, a senior media and entertainment analyst at Roth Capital Partners. “It will need to drive a lot of new subscribers to Apple TV+.” If a traditional studio released “Killers of the Flower Moon,” it would be branded a flop. And Scorsese’s latest still requires a big turnout to be considered a commercial winner. After a disappointing 61% drop in the film’s sophomore outing, revenues rebounded to decline just 25% in its third frame. It’s a promising sign the audience hasn’t totally dropped off. But the reality is that it’s less cut- and-dried for streamers because these companies have different metrics of success. Apple, for one, isn’t judged by Wall Street based on the money it makes or loses on its films, nor does it place the same emphasis on box office as it does on streaming subscribers. As tech giants like Amazon and Apple warm up to the big screen and release movies in a traditional sense (each company is reportedly planning to invest $1 billion per year on theatrical films), that’s scrambling the idea of what is hit-or-miss at the box office. “I don’t think we’re going to know how this turns out for weeks,” says David A. Gross, who runs the movie consulting firm Franchise Entertainment Research, referring to Scorsese’s latest. Beyond the box office, Apple is hoping that shiny trophies will validate the price tag for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Awards season doesn’t kick off in earnest until later in December and early January when Golden Globe and Oscar nominations are announced. “The challenge for the film,” Gross adds, “will be holding up through November and into December.” Amazon faced a similar situation with Ben Affleck’s sports drama “Air,” which grossed $90 million worldwide on a $90 million budget. It didn’t get into the black during its theatrical run, but the film added on-demand rentals and other revenue streams that wouldn’t have been possible by going directly to streaming. However, these triumphs or failures are opaque. Streaming services do not report numbers or financials beyond now reporting box office grosses. “We’ll never know how Apple and the streamers really allocate their production costs and how they tie their subscription income to production,” Gross says. “We don’t know if they’re getting a subscription bump or seeing other benefits.” Any $200 million drama is a bold bet in today’s theatrical landscape, and analysts say a traditional studio would never be able to justify the economics for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” They also point out that a big-budget film that’s geared toward adult crowds and set during a dark period of American history wouldn’t exist at all without Apple footing the bill. Paramount Pictures was originally going to finance the film but brought in Apple to fund the project after production costs kept on rising. Instead of mopping up a sea of red ink, Paramount is walking away with a distribution fee from Apple. This way, they’re making money no matter what “Flower Moon” earns at the box office. Movie theaters, too, are pleased even though ticket sales are lower than anticipated. Sure, the ultra-long run time means that cinemas can’t book as many screenings per day, but it’s not like there’s much else to show during this drab fall season. “‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ is a huge win,” says Chris Randleman, chief revenue officer of the Texas-based Flix Brewhouse chain. “It’s a very long, three-hour-50-minute movie with trailers and ads, so the fact that as many people are seeing it in theaters is great.” Even if its future projects are shorter and more commercial, Apple has made clear it will spare no expense in landing top talent. Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon,” starring Joaquin Phoenix as the French ruler, also cost $200 million and will be released by Sony in November. The company also bought Matthew Vaughn’s spy thriller “Argylle” for $200 million. It will be distributed by Universal in 2024. Apple is one of the deepest-pocketed companies in the world, and its spending habits in the entertainment space are often jokingly called rounding errors. Does it matter to Apple if its theatrical releases aren’t making money? “Apple making a $200 million movie is like you buying a cup of coffee and spilling it,” says Stephen Galloway, dean of Chapman University’s film school. “But it’s not making their brand look good if films underperform at the box office.” Some experts argue that anything Apple earns at the box office is pure profit because the company wouldn’t have collected any of that money by going straight to streaming. Galloway disagrees, pointing out that Apple is spending tens of millions of dollars to have Paramount (and Sony and Universal) put — and keep — its movies in theaters. It’ll shell out even more for awards pushes. As a result, the break-even point – which would be $500 million to $600 million for a movie of this size and scope — keeps moving farther and farther away. “If you have flops [like this] at traditional studios, heads get lobbed off. Balance sheets get studied more carefully,” Galloway says. “Apple and Amazon are learning these things.”

V magazine 2023 https://vmagazine.com/article/v145-its-time-for-cailee-spaeny/

for S/ Magazine Winter 2024 issue Royal Gilbert ph.

Source