Killers of the Flower Moon full trailer

Hollywood then: I am going to shoot a movie about betrayal in the western prairie in the early 20th century, and it is going to be the most visually beautiful picture you have ever seen

Hollywood now: I am going to make a movie about betrayal in the western prairie in the early 20th century, but it’s going to look dark and washed out and shit because that’s how the past looked

Yes. This is one of my least favorite things about film lately, so many visuals are just way too dark. What's the point of putting all that work into costumes, sets, lighting, etc....?

Agree, I cannot stand the current trend in cinematography for everything to look as dark and murky as possible. For fuck sake, LIGHT your sets and actors.

The reason this happens is because when shooting on film, the cinematographer had to overcompensate for the darkness of a dark shot with a very strong key light. They did this because they couldn’t see the developed film right away, so they had to overlight. This creates chiaroscuro.

Digital cinematography has eliminated the need for that bright key light, so it has eliminated the high contrast, Caravaggioesque chiaroscuro which is simply visually very beautiful.

Look how Gordon Willis shot the planetarium scene in Manhattan. As thick as the black shadows are, the highlights, even if it’s just a sliver of light in a person’s face, are bright white.

We will never see pictures like this again

I remember Todd Haynes' Carol was very dark. I was really squinting up in that theater. I was the youngest person in there. There was a bunch of elder lesbians with canes. When I went to the restroom there was an old man at the urinal with his pants pulled all the way down.

I just tried to read the best-selling book on which this filmed is based but found it rather dry and unemotional (it is non-fiction, after all) and quit after about 100 pages. But based on the trailer, I'm looking forward to it!

Part of the reason I’m excited for Oppenheimer is

It looks like a movie

KOTFM doesn’t look like a movie, it looks like an expensive television program. Movies need to look like this, or people will stay home. Frankly, the optimum screen for KOTFM is an OLED television.

Three and a half hour movie about white guilt and there’s no streaming option? Is Marty going senile or what?

R8: I don’t know why Nolan is so hell bent on making his films into big summer attractions. I think he would be better suited by moving Oppenheimer to the fall when the buzz will be greater.

This film is about white guilt? Can we get the musical rights?

Fucking despise this trend, it gives me a headache to try and parse WTF is going on/shadows/the set. No thanks. 👎

R7, that book was one of the hardest reads I've done in a long time. The pacing was awful. It had no energy. It leached all the tension and suspense right out. I've read cookbooks that were more exciting. I'm glad Scorcese made this movie. He is such an obsessive when it comes to details, and he certainly knows how to draw characters and build tension. When I read about the film being made, and who Leo De Caprio is playing, after reading the book I was WTF? But seeing this trailer I can honestly say I am looking forward to this. I love history, and I love true crime. And Robert De Niro might get another Oscar for this one. So far Oppenheimer and this are the only two Oscar contenders I can see coming out here.

So many current movies are dark, literally and figuratively.

R13, Cillian Murphy will take Best Actor. You heard it here first.

Three hours and 26 minutes! Hard pass.

The book was good, fast read IMO. Leo’s face does not age well. Feels like I can see the years of pasta and booze

Scorsese lost it many years ago. I watched Shutter Island over Christmas. It’s shockingly leaden.

I think it's poorly lit so as to hide Leo's old fat face.

R14, apparently modern directors are preoccupied with using “realistic” lighting, that is, using only the light that would naturally be coming from lights in the room where the action is taking place. That means that almost everything is going to be murky, particularly in films set in the past. In the old days, that would never have happened—on-set lighting was expected to highlight the faces of the actors and otherwise make dramatic points.

I seriously don't think it looks that dark. Turn up your damn brightness.

You know a lot of directors use lighting techniques to save money on special effects, or poor acting, or both. it can be a very useful tool if used judiciously. I was watching the mini series on Paramount, called "The Offer " about Al Ruddy and the making of the Godfather. If you're a Godfather fan, or even if you're not,, you should watch it. It's fun and interesting and Miles Teller is a bad ass. He was really good in it. Anyway, in the mini series, the Actor playing Francis Ford Coppola is arguing heatedly with his lighting director who is complaining that the shot is too dark and Coppola is insisting he go with natural light and even darken it up for atmosphere. He was setting the mood. I think it was the scene at the opening, in the Godfather's office on the day of his daughter's wedding, then again when Tom Hagen has to tell him Santino was killed. I think the scenes with Solozzo and Hagen in that trailer, when Solozzo kidnaps Hagen were also darkened.

The aforementioned Gordon Willis shot The Godfather.

But the dark, white contrast is still there. It’s not this field of murky shapes. You can see the outlines.

Compare the above shot to this

r24's image has a soft filter and low contrast. I notice with digital projection the blacks are always kind of washed out. With real film being projected the blacks are much inkier and deep. I notice on my expensive Sony TV modern shows always have this annoying halo effect in dark scenes. Like if an actor is backlit by a window or a light fixture the light parts will have a halo. The Crown with all it's overcast scenes was riddled with this. It's a problem with high end LCD tvs, OLED tvs don't have this but then they have motion issues and burn-in. I rarely get this issue when watching movies shot on film, especially pre-1980s movies, which thankfully make up the bulk of my viewing.

Some very insightful comments. I personally think a lot of the cinematographers now lack a proper understanding or mastery of the art form. Chiaroscuro is essential for dimly scenes or you end up with murky mud on screen. I also hate the fact that cinematographers are also afraid to use colour—colour is good, for crying out loud! The trend is dark and muted, however. Even superhero movies, which surely ought to be awash with vibrant colour, often end up washed out and dim.

TV is perhaps even worse. As a Star Trek nerd, I was driven insane by how darkly they lit the third season of Picard. It genuinely spoiled my enjoyment even after I’d hiked up the brightness, contrast and colour settings on my tv. For a series they spent significant money on, you couldn’t appreciate it visually: it was truly ugly as a result of the constant murk and darkness. In contrast, the HD remasters of the original series and the earlier seasons of The Next Generation look beautiful: perfect use of lighting and, when appropriate, chiaroscuro; and the colours absolutely pop.

I miss colour and light. We live in a dark enough world as it is; I want beauty in my entertainment.

Scorcese's films have been incredibly dull for a long time, I can't really articulate why but I think they're too polished or something. There's an unhinged and unique quality to his work in his peak years where you really feel like he's committed to an aesthetic or has some unique voice in film - the contemporary Scorcese film seems to me to come from a factory that makes great movies by the book but doesn't have a distinct character. I also think it's very hard to get financing unless you make a ton of concessions to the focus group types and I wouldn't be surprised if even Scorcese isn't above having to do that.

This image from The Crown is a good example. This would've looked terrible on my tv with blooming halos around the windows. You would think a modern high end tv would be good at showing off a modern production, but it's quite the opposite. The lighting style really exacerbates the problem.

Second trailer came out a week ago.

I'm really bothered by some of the bad CG at the start, that fucking house looks like it was done in MS Paint. The green screen with the digi-animals in the background when De Niro and Dicaprio embrace at 0:13 is also egregious and unworthy of Scorsese. This is The Power of the Dog all over again, visually speaking. Do prairies not exist anymore in the US for the filmmakers to go there and shoot a quick scene?

I can't take DiCaprio seriously in anything, but Gladstone's eyes are just mesmerising. I'll go see the movie just for her.

Leo joins Timothee ("Wonka"), Adam Driver ("Ferrari"---and his name is "Driver"!), so far as runners-up to Cillian.

R30: Honey Mouseboy ain’t getting anything for that Wonka crapola.

Yeah, I (r30) take that back, r31!

Then I thought maybe Christian Bale, but his movie seems a (Netflix) loser, too ("The Pale Blue Eye"). Matt Damon was his usual good self in "Air," but nothing special. Bradley nominated for "Maestro"? I can't see it, not with the "controversy." But if a nominee, definitely not a winner!

Here are Variety's possibilities:

I saw this at a sneak preview last night. Still processing, but this is a major work from Scorsese (i would place it in the top-tier of his oeuvre) and included some interesting “surprises” that I won’t give away including some really greats cameos.

Lily Gladstone is very much a borderline supporting/lead performance, but I could see her getting into the lead category as she is such a strong presence throughout the film and unquestionably the film’s female lead character. It’s a very strong performance.

It took me awhile to warm up to what Leo was doing in this but once I did, I was hooked. His last forty minutes or so are pretty phenomenal including his (and Gladstone’s) last scene.

Robert DeNiro was very casually chilling throughout and seems like a sure-fire nominee (not approaching win consideration for me though). I loved what John Lithgow did with limited screen-time. He’s always good.

The supporting cast is wonderful from top to bottom and I would single out Cara Jade Myers who could honestly get in what’s looking like a rather anemic supporting actress race. She stands out for sure.

And finally, to the “dark lighting” queens, I did not have a problem seeing anything at any point during the film which I saw on a very big screen. Maybe you need to get your eyes checked, grandma/grandfrau.

So predictable. The critics will heap praise on it while the online reaction will be that it's overlong and reinforces the white people bad narrative.

This is on track to be Leo's first bomb in a long time.

According to who, R35? Have you seen it? It is one of his best performances.