The two most misunderstood films of the decade expose Hollywood’s biggest failures

Hollywood loves good movies about a bad guy. As much as the industry is keen on producing these films, and as much as the audience is keen on consuming them, a point These films are often lost on most viewers.

This dissonance is most evident in the surprising reception of Martin Scorsese’s later works. Director of such decadent classics as The late one And Good guys It has long been synonymous with the glorification of crime and sympathetic American heroes. It wasn’t until Scorsese’s last three films (four, if you include that) came out. Silence) that the industry is finally starting to see the director’s true intent. He’s not really here to glamorize gang wars or to help us understand the plight of a charismatic gangster. His greatest films depict gangs through a decidedly objective lens. That the audience acknowledges an attachment to these characters—and, in the most disconcerting cases, sympathy for them—speaks more about their bias than Scorsese’s intentions.

The Dark Heart of Scorsese’s Films

with The Irish Wolf of Wall StreetAnd last year Moonflower KillersScorsese mines America’s greatest vices. The heroes of these films are not heroes; Rather, they are an embodiment of our history full of greed, arrogance and bloodshed. This embodies the best of the killersScorsese’s greatest work. The director makes a conscious choice to tell this story from the villains’ point of view. We follow a loose band of white supremacists as they eliminate every member of the Osage Nation who stands between them and random fortune. It’s a disgusting and disheartening story, and Scorsese forces us to live every moment of it.

What’s more, the director refuses to let the audience walk away without a real sense of complicity. Not only are we part of a legacy of colonialism, systematic killing, and ethnic cleansing; We are satisfied with a culture that either sanitizes these tragedies or erases them entirely. By stepping out from behind the camera in the film’s final moments to speak to us, the viewers, Scorsese holds himself accountable for his role in Hollywood’s dehumanizing machine. It’s one of the bravest statements he’s ever made, and makes his 40 years of films all the more extreme in hindsight.

Unfortunately, few seem willing to treat the film to the level it deserves.

Since the first week of the film’s wide release, the killers It has been subjected to a wide range of misinterpretations. Audiences were openly perplexed by Leonardo DiCaprio’s role as Ernest Burckhardt, unable to reconcile his (objectively reprehensible) actions with his own feelings of guilt. “What is it that we are being asked to identify with?” Requested diverse’Owen Gleiberman – As if the answer wasn’t already clear in his story. He’s complacent about his family’s bigotry and directly benefits from white supremacy, as indecisive as he may seem at times. To feel sympathy for his character—and to continue to search for his humanity, even as he conspires in genocide—is to reveal one’s inner bias. That the film was completely excluded from all the categories it was nominated for at this year’s Oscars just shows how unprepared audiences are for it. the killers message.

Is Hollywood capable of deconstructing the white savior?

Maybe it boils down to a difference of point of view. Perhaps white audiences are unable to confront their own internalized bias, or empathize with a character who represents it no Share their ethnic background. The same tonal disconnect abounds in one of the year’s biggest blockbusters: Denis Villeneuve’s sequel Sand dunes. The director insists on deconstructing the white savior myth, based on the source material written by Frank Herbert.

As Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) assumes his role as a mythical messiah and asserts influence over the Fremen, the indigenous people of the planet Arrakis, Villeneuve frames his seizure of power with a palpable sense of dread. The film also met with apparent disapproval from Paul’s scorned lover, Chaney (Zendaya), who became the de facto hero of Villeneuve’s adaptation.

Whatever happens next in Paul’s ascension to emperor, it won’t be pretty. And that’s the point: we’re not supposed to support him, but it’s easier to sympathize with his corruption than with Ernest’s. Sand dunes He presents his story as a proverbial tragedy—not only for the protagonist, but also for the indigenous culture he will manipulate. But this perspective has been largely ignored in most informal readings Sand dunessetting the stage for a rude awakening if Villeneuve can adapt Christ Dunes.

instead of, Sand Dunes: Part Two He became the poster child for the very trend that Villeneuve and Herbert were trying to avoid. The Internet has already reduced the film to one tune after the next – especially regarding Bull’s hype man, Stilgar (Javier Bardem). It’s a depressing thought for a film that presents such a clear thesis about colonialism and systemic propaganda, but there’s a sense that the world isn’t prepared to treat such blockbusters in good faith.

Movies like Sand dunes And the killers It has a way of implicating Western viewers, and Hollywood in general, with its history of erasure and obsession. Many viewers avoid this responsibility by refusing to engage with the most difficult topics, and instead downplaying their reactions to funny and funny soundbites. It’s a habit Scorsese is trying to break the killer’A divisive ending — but it’s clear that it will take a more concerted effort and a more willing audience to move the conversation in the right direction.