I will tell you why | Killers of the Flower Moon | Spoiler Chat 

I appreciate the context your provided in this video. My Great Grandfather was Henry Roan who was murdered in this book and film. Thank you for explaining how the Guardianship policies of the day had such an impact on Osage people's life choices.

I wish he’d done this as a 10 episode series with an indigenous writers room cause it’s apparent that a lot of contextual information was left out. Even the soundtrack painted a wider scope than the actual film

Also someone made a great point: you were not in a rant. You provided great and valuable info about the history of the story and the perspective of the film.

They weren't messin' with no broke people...

I first heard of this horrific tragedy on NPR some years ago when they had a discussion about David Grann’s book. Back then I thought this was a story that needed to be told to as many people as possible in the mainstream and should be a film. When I heard that Scorsese would be directing the film and was working closely with the Osage to bring this story to life on the screen, I was very much looking forward to it. When I watched the film, I thought they demonstrated the racist policy of the financial “guardians” pretty well and I completely understood why Osage married white people in part to have more control over their own finances through their spouses and for their children to also inherit the head rights with more control themselves. So, I didn’t leave the theatre with any questions as to their “Why?” I did leave the theatre feeling absolutely haunted by Lily Gladstone’s performance which was the heart and soul of this film. I left the theatre angry about these atrocities and even more driven to learn more about the Osage and what they went through during this period and afterward.

It is a timeless tale that has been repeated throughout human history.

It’s not a human thing. It is a colonialist thing. The most important thing to understand is that indigenous people are human beings,colonists are followers of domination. This is true today as it was in the past.

15 minutes into the movie Mollie says she's incompetent, I watched 3 hours more to find out why, and I just got it in this video. Thanks I guess I will read the book.

When the credits rolled in my theatre (in Ireland) I heard a couple behind me talking about it, and the first thing the man said was “Well, we learned f*** all about the Osage people.” To which the woman replied that that was her main problem too. And I found myself agreeing with them. Thanks for providing the needed context, as well as an insight into what this movie could have been. I find it genuinely amazing that a 3-and-a-half hour movie had so little actually in it about the topic it was trying to present.

The love story is the love the white man has with money and greed…

I totally get your perspective, but I also feel that the director told the story´he was most comfortable with, and with Scorsese that usually is the story of evil white men (Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street). The questions you had are totally worth its own story, but I don't think Scorsese should be the one to tell it. Also, you bring up a problem that happens with a lot of movies, especially those that don't fit into one specific category (romance, mystery, etc), which is that what the creators wanted to tell and what marketing companies try to sell usually aren't the same thing. I can even imagine the marketing team seeing Dicaprio and Gladstone hugging and decide "let's sell this as a romance".

I had been wondering about a lot of this while watching the movie, so really appreciate that you went over it and provided all of that context.

Settlers along the frontier viewed the indigenous people as not worthy of controlling so much land. Back East, many tribes remained, although did move west. You are totally correct in describing human behavior: When groups come into conflict, the opposing group is made less-than human. It goes on today. The practice of appointing guardians goes back to Colonial New England & the native groups there. It also happened with the Coaxen land in New Jersey, which was owned by the natives there, but overseen by Quaker guardians.

Yeah, I just came back from watching this movie as a black woman the whole time I was like, these women know exactly their position in these men's lives and yet, even if it were to elevate their statuses, they just go along with it? Even Mollie, who knew how to navigate white society but still kept her heritage at the center of her worldview, gives Ernest way too much grace despite the inhuman things he's done to her individually and to her family/lineage and we don't understand why. She didn't even like the guy but all of a sudden she's ready to sacrifice her self-respect and becomes completely blind for Ernest? Like this theme, along with the actual story, should have had a way bigger place in the narrative.

I applaud your take. Blatantly honest.

I totally loved the movie. It’s a long movie but well executed. If you know your history then you know why these women wanted a white man. The white man used booze and religion to conquer cultures. They were looked upon as being the best. Everything they did/do was based on greed and money. It’s sad that the tribes abandoned their own culture for another culture religion.

I really appreciate your perspective on this. I'm Puerto Rican myself and when the question of "Why are all these Osage women marrying white gold-diggers" arose my brain went in a similar direction. It is extremely noticeable both in my surroundings and within myself that the cultural erasure that comes with colonialism has created a profound disconnect with not only our traditional ways but even with our own people. I come from a fairly well off family which has benefited from the systems set upon us by Spaniards and Americans alike, and though I only realized it in my later years, an internalized shame and avoidance of my more Latin aspects was instilled in me that I would have to deconstruct years later. Similarly, our material conditions were heavily impacted as the Puerto Rican peso was outlawed by the U.S. regime, making us dependant on the integration of Americans and their ways. It's somehow refreshing, as well as disheartening, to see how different peoples are able to sympathize with one another through their plights and history. I'm quite a bit more charitable to Scorsese on this front as I believe the way he writes stories would simply not do the Osage justice were he to tackle this from their perspective. An understanding of these events happening wouldn't necessarily allow him to tackle the matter with the necessary nuance, or just as importantly, credibility. With this film, I believe Marty did what he's always done best: Explore the nature of evil men and their evil actions in a way that is not reductive to the reality of how it comes to pass. Not attributing it to simple sadism or cartoonish, all-encompassing hatred, but rather the pursuit of ever-larger power in a system where said power is the only true arbiter of law/order/justice/etc. Were he to tackle much of these subjects, it would not only come across as callous or potentially even victim-blaming at times, it would take focus away from the depravity, injustice, and surrounding complacency that sit at the heart of this film's message. It is more a cautionary tell than anything else in my eyes. Although...I think we can all agree the marketing could've done a much better job representing the final product. 🤣 I think at the end this is mostly just a difference in opinion here. Your criticisms are very well thought out and provide interesting insight on their own, even when separated from the movie. This is the first of your videos I've come across so keep it up! I'll definitely be adding your content to the lineup of filters I've amassed for movie theatre money-spending from now on! I hope someone of a Native background makes the movie you were hoping to see some time soon, that's a story that deserves its own 3+ hours; I'd love to see it!

I dig your perspective. I also did enjoy the film. It was loaded 3.5 hour run time. The world building felt authentic. I didn’t expect every perspective to be honored in the film, but I did enjoy how it sparked my curiosity to learn more about the tribe and it got me on RU-vid to learn more about the oil money and why women of the tribe married greedy white men. I never read the book, maybe the book did a better job of giving more of that information. I’d love to see a documentary to complement the film to give more of that context. But thank you for shining light on those blind spots.

The first time I heard about the Osage massacre was during a documentary about Elizabeth Marie Tall Chief, the first Native American Prima Ballerina. I'm not into ballet but I would rather see a biopic about her than this movie.

I was looking for someone who felt the same as I did after watching the movie and found your review. One thing to mention is that because who was behind the murders was given away so early in the movie the audience was always ahead of the story for 3 hours. Movie was from the least interesting perspective.

I went looking for reviews of this movie and came across this, and it's maybe one of the best / most-well-informed reviews(?) of a movie I've seen on RU-vid. I love your thoughtfulness!

I’ve seen a couple reviews at this point and I’m very happy I saw this one. You do a great job breaking down a lot of this. I haven’t seen the movie yet but reading up a bit and seeing videos I thought about the same exact things you’ve explained in this video. So well done, I appreciate the review

Doctors would supply poison ☠️ and counteract the affects with heroine. Those were dark times.

Thankyou! A lot of context missing! The relationship between Molly and Ernest was so annoying to watch for 3 hours because it didnt make any sense!

I love your reviews queen ❤

You know a great reviewer when you binge watch the whole review from the first time you see her content and how she logically analyzes each aspect of the movie, Without even watching it. Happy to subscribe❤.

The Osage seemed to be clueless or helpless. I think incompetent is rough but accurate. Where were the Osage Men? I appreciate that Scorsese showed in no uncertain terms who the villains are and how they used American infrastructure to commit these kinds atrocities. However, the portrayal of the Osage was frustratingly passive in their demise.

Sounds like the movie is imitating life. DeCrappio trades out his girlfriends right after they reach 25. I’m sure they all believed he loved them.

I really liked your insights and the way you explained things in this video. It was very eye opening.

Was it dumb that they kept marrying white guys and they all kept ended up dying and nobody connected the dots when it was going on, sure. But all the movie did was recount what happened in the book that it was based on. I doubt the book even answer that question because everyone involved with this has passed on. So we can't ask Molly why she and her sisters did it. I also don't think that was the point of the movie and it shouldn't be knocked for not answering that. The point of the whole movie was that this incident was horrible and not even talked about really. WHO HERE HONESTLY HAS HEARD ABOUT THIS INCIDENT BEFORE THE BOOK OR MOVIE?, it don't matter why they kept marrying white dudes (it was dumb yes but we have the power of hindsight here). You shouldn't be murdered because you make a foolish mistake and can't see a wolf in sheep's clothing. Love makes you blind. Think we can all agree on that and relate to that.

Thank you for doing this spoiler chat; you answered a lot of the questions I had during & after watching this film.

You've done such a good job in this review. I really appreciate this.

The most refreshing, honest review of a movie I’ve ever listened to. This channel is a like a pair of jeans in your size at TJ Maxx.

I saw the film last week and my opinion on it has softened a little. I think this is actually an example of “too many cooks in the kitchen”. Scorsese said originally that the movie was going to be from the POV of the BOI agents and it was going to be very unclear who was behind the killings. Then supposedly members of the Osage tribe begged him not to “make the movie about all the white guys” So Scorsese changed directions but…seemingly only halfway because a big part of our focus is also on the murderers so there’s no “mystery”. I’m also convinced he made it less entertaining on purpose…he supposedly had some guilt about turning a murder case into a movie at all by the end Also…DiCaprio saying he loved his wife and then not showing that in his actions was *the point*. Ernest did NOT love Molly, but he always swore he did even after attempting to poison her

Yes this movie made the Osage seem simple , and easy to take advantage of . When in reality yhe entire social structure was fram worked to to whete osage had no power i did like how he showed how much of vultures the settlers were . I thought he couldve really explained the perspective of mollie alot bettwr because i really wasnt sure if she actually knew. What hwr husband was doing , or if she just turned a blind eye . Not the best story telling for the osage . This movie somehow still out white men to the front and narives to the back and yet the story was supoosed to be about them. I do think it was Scoresasses job to highlight these things considering he decided to create the movie . No excuses .

Thanks for giving us the background. Great review....

Watched the entirety of your excellent review. While I loved the film (but thought the final hour needed to be half as long), you have illuminated so much here, I now must read the book. Thank you for your fascinating insight!

And don't apologize for being a realist, Alachia. If the storytelling is greatly flawed, and an affront to what occurred in reality, tear it apart. Your truth is refreshing. Scorsese just aint that deep. If he cared about substance, that movie would have had narration, especially for 3.5 hours.

Thank you so much for this enlightening lecture

Thanks for answering this HUGE question.

Such a good review, yet again

Thank you for the video, Alachia. 😀This is a spoiler chat video that helped me,

Excellent summation!

Thank you for the context.

Great video alachia 👊

I always love your commentary BUT I think you may have been expecting this film to answer questions it was not designed to. If the film tried to answer EVERY question we may have as to the whys, we'd still be in the theater right now. 😂😂😂 I think we have the responsibility to educate ourselves on the unanswered questions and dig into the subject matter by other means than this film. I TOTALLY agree that Leo's character didn't love his wife at all. I never got the impression this was going to be a murder mystery. Hell... We KNOW who's behind it in one form or another. I think the press conference Scorcese and the cast had at the Cannes Film Festival may shed light on why he told the story the way he did.

There are some deeper questions about the relationship america has with native Americans; 1/ American government still hasn’t had that hard conversation yet or (set up the proper channels to let that come about)with the remaining native american communities. What would that conversation achieve for the future of america? would that change anything i don’t know… 2/ Historical presentation of native american people have been one sided and caricatures- not largely contested publicly ( drunks living off in reservations, naive, simple people, not much to offer etc.) 3/ the fast assimilation of native Americans into white culture by force or naturally has created this ‘am 10% or 20% native nationalism’ in america which has nothing to do with Native american cultural identity or progressive heritage values but a hijacking of a diluted cultural component overseen by US government for couple of centuries. 4/ Pocahontas to Molly the great trope that American culture has put forward time and again of the quintessential Native American woman with a white lover is so entrenched in the culture that Scorsese can easily play that angle in this movie without having to justify the whole logic or character development in the film - molly being one dimensional is a classic example of that lethargic character development, she is a easy sidekick to leave outside the spotlight and focus on the main character Ernest and the plot 5/ America is nation built on rivers of blood and european racism - some point in history Americans as a nation will be made to face that reality and seek reconciliation from the past but would this movie do it ??? NO! that time is still to come … Till this movie came out residents of Oklahoma or US schools never mentioned one bit or knew at large anything about Osage people or their misfortune indeed not their murders!!!

Great video Alachia - kudos

This movie was more of a Columbo-style narrative. Its a "Howcatchem" instead of a "Whodunnit." I thought the movie was good but hard to watch and still suffers a bit from having Euro influences rather than Native Americans telling their story from the inside out.

Girl you hit the nail on the head..keep going love this video..

Thank you for taking the time to explain, it was so helpful and I agree, what a wasted opportunity to tell the story of the Osage.

They were zaddy worshiping burn the cape divestors

It's best to read David Grann's book because the history underlying the film is extremely complex. I saw the movie with my son and daughter, my son and I had read the book and we had discussed it with his sister and watched documentaries months before the movie. It's not an easy movie to watch without any context. Even if you just watch documentaries beforehand, it will really help you grasp what a great film Scorsese has made and what great acting De Niro, Di Caprio and Lily Gladstone deliver in it.

Thank you so much this answered so many questions. The movie was 3 hours they could’ve easily followed the books’ chapters

Wowcast fan from way back in the day I love hearing you talk about anything.

I think you are spot on, with your review, and brilliant commentary. Thank you. You really helped me see things from their point of view, in terms of why they were marrying these white men. If I had to go through a stranger, someone considered my money’s guardian, and they benefited from that relationship, it make’s perfect sense to marry a white man, even an obvious gold digger, because he would at least be keeping the wealth in the family, and could become the guardian thus removing the middleman… and hopefully the interest they showed is genuine, and perhaps a romantic connection could continue despite the monetary advantage… The educational perspective, leading to major cultural differences between the old gen and new gen, also explains the attraction to white men, as more fitting American parters to live out their lives with, and pass on to their children a better chance to be seen by society at large less as a savage (pains me to even use that word, it’s disgusting)… It’s horrifying what was done to these people to make them dislike their own culture so very much, and very, very sad how effective it was, as well.

I get why you’re trying to elegantly dance with this topic however there is a distinct difference. Throughout history most of the time it would be people within their own race in conflict etc. The distinction which makes America a little unique is the conflict was race based. They felt only them the settlers who were white were deserving of anything the land/country had to offer and all other people did not deserve to benefit from anything at all because they were beneath them.

I loved the movie. Haven't read the book yet. At first I was a little put off about your criticism of the film. Your research and commentary makes sense. I wish they had included that information. Thanks 💯

Great analysis! I do wish the movie would have tackled the points you made in this video.

This is so well done thank you for covering all basis. my Creek, Choctaw, and Cherokee ancestors enslaved their darker family members upon being forced to Oklahoma and abandoned their spouses and children that were deemed too "dark"/black. It's like one generation they went from living as a family unit to separating themselves. It's really about the power dynamics and the propaganda and not race

Thank you! Enjoyed this immensely. He tries from his perspective.

This is helpful analysis; thank you.

Thank you for this

Thanks, i learned a lot from this video!

It was obvious that they married them for money, but why did Rita marry her sister's husband. Wasn't there any Osage men left. King was the wolfe who destroyed them from within. He was evil

Thanks alachia

Great historical insight Ms. Queen. I think Scorsese did an excellent job constructing this film and story from a certain pov. I left the theater loving this movie, so much so that i just saw it for a second time in the theatre, however I had a lot of issues with the story and love how you answered my questions. Subscribed. Can’t wait to check out your analysis of other films. :)

awesome review

THANK YOU!!!! Subscribed.

This is great context, and thanks for providing it. "Killers of the Flower Moon" should have been an in-depth miniseries in my opinion, because there is so much story to tell. People complained about the length of the movie, but it should have actually been longer.

This is a very interesting conversation. It is hard when we want something from a story (movie in this case) and it’s not what we are getting. I find I have a harder time accepting this when I have an emotional connection to the story.

Excellent video and take. I am not surprised that your question was not thoroughly put in the movie. Assimilation is the key to destroy many minority cultures around the world. I'm reading the book now. Thanks so much for your perspective. I learned some things!

Thank you for this!! I was really getting frustrated with why these Osage women kept marrying white men with everything that was going on. Surely there had been enough history by the 1920s for them to know not to be so trusting. This explains a lot and as long as that movie was, should have been included.

The reservations were not set aside lol they were forced to live there

KEEP GOING! I'm your new fan! My would say, "The right people will love you, and the right people will hate you!". Being yourself is the only way to be in our short lives on this planet. Keep Going! Your style is so refreshing.

It came across to ne like they just married the white men to get connections and to get mixed children that could potentially have even more opportunities. The only relationship that seemed genuine was Molly and Ernest, because they were the only ones that weren't talking superficially about their relationship. Ernest did fucked up stuffed, but he was shown to be the only husband that actually enjoyed being around his wife, his kids and actually gave a shit about Molly's condition. You don't hold your wife, as she's dying in bed, and not give a shit. It could have been better fleshed out, yes, but Ernest acted differently around his wife than the others did. That was how they differentiated him. These were superficial marriages. It was like reverse assigned marriages lol. As for the murder mystery aspect....how was it advertised as a murder mystery? Every trailer tells us that it's King in charge of all the killing. I guess the only mystery could be how Ernest was involved, but the trailers constantly imply he's complicit or at least knows who's doing the killing. That's how it's different from the book. It's not supposed to be a mystery in the movie. Tho, I do wish we would've gotten more of the Osage pov. Maybe through Henry as well and/or an extended flashback of Molly's life until that point. Even the trials could have been a miniseries, itself. I think the main reason the movie was depicted this way, was to appease to the tribe. The Osage were apart of the writing process and approved the final cut, I believe.

You are SO GOOD at communicating your thoughts. I loved this spoiler review/rant lol.

how can a historical movie that's so long lack so much context

What I didn't get is why she wanted to go back to her husband as he was literally standing in jail for the murder of her family members. Is that what really happened in real life? It wasn't until she realized he had tried to kill her also that broke the camels back.. up till then she was cool with it all.

Thank you! Well said.

I appreciate the points you made with this video. The answer to your question was touched on in the movie. But it wasn’t really hammered home in the movie. There was a scene where Molly went and was asking for money and was getting told no. Or was being questioned about the expensive meat she was buying. But they didn’t clearly connect the dots in the film. Also I feel that this movie is more of a crime drama and not a murder mystery. But I think they definitely should have spent more time with how the native people felt about what was going on in the community. They should have focused more on the community in some places. But I felt that the movie was trying to be more about showing how “normal” it was for people to plot on others and be two faced to commit crimes, and how conplicebt people are. But I felt they wanted to just lay bare how these people interacted with other criminals. Whats also funny is I think this is a “love” story, but it’s not a love between people, but what a love of money will lead too. But I agree that they could have added more elements from the book and I like the comparison between the source material to the movie. But I appreciate your perspective on this movie

Watched it all. I appreciate your reviews. 🙂 I think honest reviews are rare nowadays since Siskel & Ebert passed on. Their thumbs up or down system wasn't meant to discourage anyone from seeing any movie as they loved movies, but it did begin to influence ticket sales as they became more well known. I don't think movie studios want anything like their show on TV again.

I am a black woman. And I could not watch this movie. I appreciate telling this story because I never knew this happened. But I found myself getting mad watching the movie. Then I started ignoring it. I hope someone of indigenous descent can remake this story . I could not understand how all that was happening.

I agree Alachia when you go see a movie you want to see just how the movie all goes no matter what because I love films and I love to watch just about almost any movie just to see if I really do enjoy it

Thanks for having the courage to call out the real problems with this movie. Most reviewers are blinded by the spectacular production values and the star director and actor names. I do respect all the hard work that people put into the film and it is a shame that the script is so wrong.

Two thumbs up for this commentary. I enjoyed the movie, but it was obvious there was a lot of context missing. Until your video I also wondered "why" and now it makes so much more sense. I understand Scorcese's desire to please the Osage people, but changing the narrative meant a lot was left out which ultimately led to a much more shallow story. I think he should've stayed true to his original vision.

I really enjoyed listening to this and your previous review thanks Alachia. You give great insights and contexts to the movie and the events and history around the movie. I was looking forward to watching this film but now I am probably going to bypass it. So many films these days are disappointing, even from once great directors. There seems to be a preference of style over substance and a lack of subtlety and nuance.

Okay. I guess not a lot of people are going to watch the whole video. Totally understandable, it's a rambling rant. The answer to the question is at 21:21

I understand the difference between personally enjoying a movie and appreciating the quality of a movie. I'm able to separate those things. I give this move a C+ for a different reason. I wanted to cry for the events depicted. I'm an easy crier. I've cried at a lot of movies. This movie didn't have the heart centeredness I wanted. I wish Spielberg would have written/directed this one. He knows how to make people cry. They just didn't tell the story that I wanted told. All that being said, I give this movie an A+ for the quality of it.

Great insight

Still watching, but you're talking about how this wasn't a whodunit, but a lot of people already know the Osage story so it would make no sense to do it that way. We know whodunit, this was a "howcatchem"

I feel like most of what you explained was pretty clear from the film. I’m not sure why you didn’t like it. It doesn’t spell it out, but it’s all over the film in between the lines.

The Scorsese approach of “humanizing” the horrific criminal is not appropriate for this story. This is a real history with real people and a genocide that many of us are still experiencing today. It is very triggering for the film to take this approach especially after publicizing the massive script rewrite they really made it seem like it would be an Osage story. Considering the MMIW epidemic and the context of historical genocide the last thing we needed was a “complicated” abuser who murders Native women for money. I also hated the dances with oil scene like wth even was that. Mollie’s story was the only one that was really told and it was twisted into a demented love story. 99% of the Osages on screen were just there to get murdered. It was disappointing.

I didn’t watch any trailers and loved the film didn’t even think it was meant to be a murder mystery film but that’s fair when that’s your expectations via the trailers

I haven’t seen this movie but a documentary about the case (1920s RU-vid channel). Thank you for your honest review. Subscribed.

To me the movie isn't meant to be a 'Who dunnit'. Is more about the How and Why. I do agree that a better understanding of the Osage perspective, would have helped. That said, Lily Gladstone was , was just wow, wow, wow!!!

Excellent framing - why did these women keep on doing this self-destructive stuff? A work of fiction doesn't have to provide answers. But good art will haunt you with answers.

Very good breakdown to explain the “why’s” of the film. I read the book before watching the movie and wondered why Scorsese decided to tell the story from the beginning exposing who were behind the murders. Almost as if to make the murders the entertaining part. I had a huge problem with that and the movie could have been much better if the first half was told from the perspective of the Osage who had no idea of the machinations their “friends” were capable of. I learned even more through your breakdown.

I think the film is trying to make you research the story afterward. it is not a documentary, and it can't be. like the last video you have said, a lot of people was asking this questions, and that is the point. the point is make people ask question and research it. the movie used the very designed ending to not giving satisfaction of the story, it is meant to tell people things are recorded, you need to go read them. I never know about this story because 1.I don't live in america, 2. they don't teach this in school. after I watched the movie, I never thought "how dare the movie don't tell me everything i want?" Because I know it is a movie and I start to read more about the story and the history. I think the movie did what it suppose to do. Not by telling you everything you need to learn but build your interest to go learn things. A film is an art form of telling story, not educating people about history. After I see WW2 movie about Japanese people mass murder Chinese, I don't go ask "why the movie didn't tell people why so few Japanese solider can kill some many Chinese civilians, why didn't they fight back?" That will be a very dumb question to ask out loud. If people have questions and care about the answers, they should go do their own research, or watch the videos like this you just made to explain it. movies are not here to help comforting people's ignorance. whoever asked this type of questions out loud is either very simple or just don't care about finding things themselves. If there is a movie about DV, should they spend sometime to explain why the victims stay with their abuser? Movies are not public education tools, they are story telling tools that can help public educations. I bet you money this movie made many people start to research this part of history. at least all the people who actually care about the truth. people who ask a question in a RU-vid comment section and think that is research does not care about the questions they asked to begin with. Anyone who would care about the question would have do their own research. when do we start to think ignorance is some type of honesty? when do we start to think we should help people who jump to victim blaming understand why they are wrong? If someone don't know something, go find it out, don't show ignorance and think a movie owe people answers. Also, if someone see victims and first reaction is asking why the victims become victims, that should ring some alarm,s people who do that should ask themselves why that is the first thought, why they didn't bother to find that out instead of asking youtube sections. Victim blaming should never be the first thought of anyone.

great post. loved the film, but agree re many of your comments. super interesting. thank you. subscribed.