The Power of the Dog

[Sabin]

Reading Owen Gleiberman's mixed (but very well-written) review on The Power of the Dog only clarifies to me why I like it.

https://variety.com/author/owen-gleiberman/

[Sabin]

I think that's fair. And honestly, the longer I sit with The Power of the Dog, it just reveals itself to be a film of mysteries, not confusion. I wonder to myself why exactly Phil has his change towards Peter, and it occurs to me that Peter is a student at college, which is about when Bronco Henry found Peter. Perhaps he is re-enacting the cycle, perhaps he is attracted to Peter, or perhaps he is so longing for human connection that falling into this cycle is the only thing he knows how to do. It's mysterious and open to interpretation but it's powerful, which is a tribute to the strength of the character work.

At two hours and five minutes, I wish there was a bit more meat on its bones, but it's quite a good film and would be a more than fine choice.

[OscarGuy]

SPOILERS

In the specific scene you mention regarding him compulsively polishing the saddle, I take that scene more as a "and here's someone else leaving me" moment. His antagonism towards Dunst is entirely built on the idea that he's afraid of being alone and now his brother has found someone else and will be leaving him as well. So, in that scene, he isn't disgusted by the act of sex, but on the compounding his feeling of loneliness. And maybe I'm misreading what you're saying, but I thought I'd share my impressions in case you were.

[Sabin]

SPOILERS -- NO IDEA HOW ANYONE HASN'T SEEN IT YET

Watched it again. Also no major change in estimation. Constant, expert-level sustained tension. Four three-dimensional characters bound together by an untenable situation. But there are a handful of choices that trip me up occasionally. In some ways this film is a battle between a very thoughtful, well-written screenplay and a director who uses disorientation as a cudgel. She does this through music, through leaping out of a scene abruptly, through shocking reveals. It mostly weaves together strongly, but there are some moments that don't entirely hold up for me. I remain annoyed by Jane Campion's decision to leap out of the final scene between Phil and Peter to shots of cattle. Seriously, what happened after that moment? That being said, my God does she know how to masterfully stage a scene.

Also (and this leapt out at me on a first viewing but I'd forgotten it), it's hard to track how comfortable Phil Burbank is with his sexuality. He's set up to be a closet-case who taunts Peter like a schoolyard bully. Later on in the script, he's laying shirtless on the grass, draping Bronco Henry's handkerchief over his body in an erotic reverie. There are times where I wondered if these are the characters or if it's the God's eye of Jane Campion, the director. I know these things aren't binary, but I was never sure if the story was setting up someone who was trying to hide who he is from the world or who's hiding from himself. This problem is compounded by the fact that his backstory with family, college, and Bronco Henry is never that clear. This is a shame because it's very interesting, but there's also ample opportunity for George to give Rose (who would be curious to know) at least some kind of window into their pasts. Again: it's just a shame because Bronco Henry never quite comes to life. Instead, we're treated to moments that leap out as weird like when Phil is so disturbed by the sounds of his brother having sex that he leaps out of bed to compulsively polish Bronco Henry's saddle.

Quite a good movie. Next to Licorice Pizza, I'm more interested in seeing deleted scenes for this one as I've been for any movie in years.

[flipp525]

In the book (which I read first), it seems to be implied.

I think Campion’s way of dealing with that is the paper flowers at the grave instead of real ones.

[Big Magilla]

I didn't read that into it at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to make a TV series based on the character who actually goes in that direction.

[mlrg]

My take on Peter’s character is that he suffers from oedipus complex, so my answer to your question about killing is father is yes.

[Sabin]

Somebody asked me a question today about The Power of the Dog and I didn't think about it but it's totally fascinating.

Are you ready?

Did Peter kill his alcoholic father as well?

I know what you're thinking. That's not what he tells Phil.

So...?

Also, that would mean that Peter would be a serial killer in the making? Like Norman Bates.

And...?

That would also mean that the image of Peter looking down at Rose and George might foreshadow that he is always watching over his mother and would be willing to kill George if he ever does anything wrong.

Anyway, I'm not sure I believe this. I think this reading of The Power of the Dog might be a little bit of a stretch. But I very much want to watch it again to see if there's anything to it, that it's some sort of "Birth of Norman Bates" tale.

[danfrank]

One other thought: if we think of this in archetypal terms the hero is embodied in a character who is flamboyantly masculine yet ultimately weak, while the hero—who slays the villain—is embodied in someone who is feminine and ultimately strong . The “nancy boy,” as he is called by one of the ranch hands, proves himself to be anything but a wimp. In a more standard feminist story the hero would be portrayed as a woman and the villain as a straight man. I like that Campion (or the original writer) mixes it up to avoid stereotyping and convey the message that it is one’s traits that matter.

Beyond all this symbolism I just think it’s a damn good, entertaining film.

[danfrank]

Yes, Sabin, what “needed to be killed” was not so much the person of Phil—indeed a tragic figure—but what he represented: the kind of masculinity that is subjugating and cruel (I agree that “toxic masculinity” is a bit overused these days). To me that answers Okri’s questions of why. Of course within the more literal story the boy had to have a more mundane motive, but the symbolic story is, I think, more relevant here. I think it’s fair to say that Campion is a feminist filmmaker and this idea would be well-aligned with the type of ideas she likes to express.

[Sabin]

SPOILERS (why don't we just call it "The Power of the Dog -- Spoilers Thread?")

I knew. As soon as the cause of death was revealed, I knew. Why else were we shown Peter and the dead cow? But even more so the thing that to me played so prominently and powerfully throughout this film was it presented Phil as a tragic figure who embodied something that needed to die or be killed. We can debate whether or not the phrase "toxic masculinity" is overused but in this case he is clearly a man who has been taught ways of the world that do not need to continue onward, and The Power of the Dog is a clear case of a new way of life killing him for presumably the greater good. It's a film about something/someone that needs to die. I absolutely took Phil as the cause for Rose's drinking. Every waking moment of her new life was filled with terror and torment simply due to proximity to Phil. She spoke to me as a woman who likely would have desperately preferred to return to her previous life before marriage to George if it meant being rid of the psychological torture she must endure everyday had anyone an inkling to ask her. I think Peter can see this and it's entirely credible that he does what he does. I also think Jane Campion is in the right to present it in the way that she does because it's entirely consistent with Kodi Smit-McPhee's observant performance. I wouldn't have minded one or two inflections more in the epilogue to make it land a little clearer and heavier but I'm with Tee: brilliant twist and a very earned one.

The Power of the Dog has a literary flow to it that I appreciated quite a bit. I love how it shifted its focus from one character to the next. I'm struggling to think of why I don't quite adore the film, although it's very good and will likely be my favorite of the Best Picture nominees. I might agree with Tee that some of Jane Campion's visual storytelling might be to blame. She has a way of cutting out from a scene at the most intense moment to a landscape or a montage where doing something else might behoove her. There are times where I just wanted her to finish a scene. I though to myself "What is this, Dune?" I don't find the notion of a closeted cowboy dated in 2021 considering what it says about masculinity being a learned poison, but it is certainly a movie that feels poised to explore and then it doesn't. Leaving the climactic scene with Cumberbatch and Smit-McPhee early feels like a cheat. I appreciate the ending quite a bit but I do feel a little robbed. What works about the film so well is just how goddamn tense it is. Campion sets up the tenseness of the dynamics between Phil and George, Rose, and Peter so well and plays scenes out so uncomfortably. Others have spoken favorably about Cumberbatch so I won't waste time. I think he'll win the Oscar. I don't know if Dunst will but the scenes where the focus pivots to her are exceptional. As of late, Dunst has had a bit of a weary air to her and it's put to excellent use in this film as she struggles to make it through another moment with this guy.

Quite good.

[OscarGuy]

SPOILERS.

I think there was a part of Peter that did come to care for Phil in that two ships passing in the night kind of way. I think that's why he keeps the rope at the end, almost reverently placing it out of sight, much like the handkerchief and the magazines. It's interesting to watch the power dynamic in the film shift from Phil to Peter as one becomes more reserved and the other more vulnerable.

I will admit that I didn't really pick up on the murder plot right away. Like Okri, I had forgotten the opening narration by the end, but for me, the trigger was when the doctor said he died of anthrax. That's when I put the pieces together and worked back (again like Okri).

I did however, get the visual cues that Phil was purposefully torturing Rose psychologically. We already had established that he resented her for taking his brother away from him. Those nights where George came back late and the simultaneous anger and isolation Phil exhibits makes it clear that as he plays the banjo (I think it was a banjo and not a guitar, but I could be misremembering), with the cuts between Rose losing confidence in herself and Phil seeming to gloat, there was enough data there to make the connection that Phil was responsible. Correct me if I'm misremembering, but doesn't Peter see what Phil's doing in one of those moments? Even if I am, there's no question that he certifies that belief when Phil badmouths Rose in front of him.

They don't dig enough into the seemingly caring George and the psychological pressure he puts on her and perhaps there should have been more of that, but she seems confident enough to practice faithfully over the days leading up to the dinner, but it's only after Phil starts trying to drown out her piano (IMO a subtle bit playing on the concept of mansplaining) that she starts to lose faith in her ability. While Phil isn't directly responsible for her drinking, it was his eroding of her confidence that directly results in her clammy self-destruction at the piano during dinner and thus her continued descent into alcoholism.

And perhaps I misread below, but in Tee's recitation of the incident with the Native Americans, it almost makes it sound like she's not doing it for revenge. She's been told point blank that those hides are kept at Phil's requirement. It's a small moment of rebellion on her part and I think that's an important distinction to make.

[Okri]

For me, it was less the mechanics and more the psychology that I didn't quite grasp. I didn't remember the opening narration by the end so didn't really feel the climactic act was about protecting his mother. I thought it was vengeance, but never quite connected it to what for. I actually think the film didn't hold Cumberbatch "accountable" for Dunst's drinking so didn't see it as Smit-McPhee assigning blame for that. So then I thought it was from the way he was treated prior to his mom's marriage, but the relationship between the two men (the most productive and fascinating part of the film) had progressed past that point (or so I had thought).

So less the what and more the why.

[danfrank]

[SPOILERS]

Like you, Tee, I asked myself “what just happened?” when the Cumberbatch character suddenly became ill and died. But then at the end when the boy is handling the rope and slides it under his bed I thought, Ah, the rope! Campion was signaling the answer to the mystery here. From there I found it pretty easy to work backwards to piece the story together. This was a story that was told more through visual images than through dialogue. I think Campion did this masterfully. To piece together that this was an actual murder, working backwards from the rope under the bed, there was the wounded hand immersed in the water containing the cowhide strips, the boy handing over that hide, and the boy cutting the hide from the diseased cow. The main motive for the murder comes at the very beginning with the boy’s narrative in which he says something about how he wouldn’t be a man if he didn’t protect his mother. Of course the boy had at least one other motive: revenge for his victim’s incredible cruelty toward him at the restaurant where they first met.

The gay angle, which allows the boy to get close to the Cumberbatch character, is also signaled primarily through visual images: Cumberbatch moving through his lair, followed by the boy discovering that same lair and finding the muscle magazines, the masturbation with the mentor’s kerchief, and then the boy’s ongoing seduction, culminating with the shared cigarette. It’s interesting to think about whether the boy was even gay. Perhaps he just took advantage of the perception that he was gay to seduce the clearly queer Cumberbatch.

Of course a major theme of the film is the nature of manliness and the toll of toxic masculinity (and internalized homophobia).

I think it’s to the film’s credit that the story is not so clearly told, that it keeps shifting and keeps you guessing, that it practically forces you keep thinking about it after it’s over. I’m looking forward to watching it again to see what other signaling of the story I missed the first time. This is cinema with a capital C. I loved its incredible visual storytelling, its beautiful pacing, and its haunting themes.

[Big Magilla]

SPOILER CONITINUED

Tee, the ending has been alluded to in other threads. Some people apparently do "get it" immediately. I had to think about it before reaching the conclusion that there was only one way to see it. I was apparently woolgathering or dozed off during the part where the kid gives him the hide from the infected cow, thinking he was continuing with the same hide he had been using. I therefore initially thought that either the kid somehow murdered him off-camera or he picked up anthrax from some unknown factor. I eventually put the two together.

I read somewhere that Campion filmed a scene explaining what happened but abandoned it because she thought people could figure it out for themselves. I wish she had left it in for us old guys who are not as quick on the uptake as we used to be.