Skip to main content

You can tell the truth. That I stink, and I love it.

The Power of the Dog

(SPOILERS) Toxic masculinity, ahoy! Obviously, none of us can get enough of this subject, such that even the tritest iteration thereof will duly win all the plaudits going. Which, for all that it’s handsomely mounted, admirably directed and – well, mostly – commendably performed, The Power of the Dog, adapted from Thomas Savage’s 1967 novel, is. At least, until it transforms in to The Young Poisoner’s Handbook during the last twenty minutes. James Campion’s likely Best Picture Oscar contender would surely have been more enthusiastically received (from me, I mean) if it had switched perspective, charting the development of a young sociopath rather than the shamefully concealed sexuality of its sadistic protagonist and those satellites he torpedoes into his pit of disgust.

Of course, then the picture’s twist – I call it that, because every stage of The Power of the Dog’s plot is otherwise grimly, suffocatingly predictable - wouldn’t have the cachet it does, but I’m unconvinced the preceding hundred or so minutes makes it worth the wait. There are significant earlier intimations, of course, and some have suggested (as some always do) that the twist is obvious a mile off. In which case, well done yous. There’s the admiration of Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) at the ease with which young Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) dispatches a rabbit, and the earlier incident with another, for the purposes of “study”, which makes it pretty clear that Peter’s father’s reaction to his remorseless character – “You, too strong?” breathes Phil in disbelief – is substantiated.

But we’re generally too overpowered by rancher Phil’s poisonous atmosphere to get a chance with the other characters. There’s Phil’s brother George (Jesse Plemons) and his stoical passivity (initially sensitive to his new wife, but absolutely clueless about facing truths). And Kirsten Dunst is superb as Rose, but making her a sous who needs her psycho son to recuperate her isn’t the most forward leading of characterisations (if we’re looking for that in a film that foregrounds the importance of progressivism while making its gay characters entirely unappetising).

Your mileage may vary for this kind of fare, but for me the relentless bleakness of The Power of the Dog is not its own reward – The Day of the Locust came to mind as a similarly irretrievable wallow in despondency – and certainly scant justification for whatever nuggets of insight it nurses over fully and freely expressing one’s sexuality. The picture spends time with the other characters, most notably Dunst’s Rose, whom Phil takes an instant dislike to when his brother “Fatso” marries her. But it does so only so as to painstakingly trace her misery.

There’s a sweet scene early on when George dons an apron and serves Rose’s customers, but that aside, he is peculiarly inert and removed from any drama. Indeed, the characters move about as if ghosts to each other; we’re privy only to their distant interactions, from Phil mocking Rose’s piano practice with perfectly improvised banjo playing – the entire sequence of practice and recital is torturously indulged by Campion – to the cowhands jeering at fey Peter. We aren’t privy to any intimate contact between George and Rose beyond their first night at the ranch, so they may as well be separated, and the only noteworthy conversation he has with Phil is asking him to wash; an altercation is brewing with Phil that never comes, but rather than sustaining tension due to Phil’s dread shadow, the effect is one of unmoderated, cumulative ennui.

And that’s despite a somewhat cartoonish quality fostered by the visual broad strokes and extreme behaviour. The two unlikely brothers brought to mind nothing so much as Fattypuffs and Thinifers (a children’s novel set in the Hollow Earth); apparently Paul Dano was in initial talks to play George (so clearly, the fatso insult was one sensitively developed especially for Plemons). Smit-McPhee appears to be trotting out another gangly teenage type at first (see Slow West), but ends up closer to his capable youth of Alpha; it’s a deceptively assured performance, especially when we see – through a look, a gesture, an insight – that he has the upper hand on the predator.

Cumberbatch conveys pretence at wild-man masculinity, but his entire bearing and posture and manner are soperformative, there’s never any doubt this is an act; are we supposed to think Phil’s a believable rugged cowboy at any point (rather than a slumming-it Harvard educated closeted homosexual all the rugged cowhands should be able to spot a mile off)? Because if so, he fails entirely. Meaning, Cumberbatch is a natural at a nasty specimen, but not at essaying a gay Jack Palance. More than this, the facile nature of Phil’s dark secret – mentor Bronco Henry got him all dirty, so to speak, and he has stayed all dirty (“Have you ever tried the house bath, Phil?”) – simply isn’t enough to hang the picture’s drama on, since it’s evident from nigh on the first scene.

Somewhere along the line, I presume Campion decided to hone down her material; obviously not at Netflix’s behest, since they’re the home of filmmaker indulgence. At any rate, I can’t otherwise explain Thomasin McKenzie – who was only just the lead in Last Night in Soho – appearing for at most a couple of minutes of screen time.

Cumberbatch commented of his director “She’s got such an amazing sensitivity to toxic masculinity in one hand, a woman’s distress in another” Even though the woman in question needs her son to save her. Benedict is clearly more versed in woke buzzwords than a few years back, when he made a faux pas sure to return to the conversation should he become a Best Actor contender.

As for Jane, yes, she’s obviously been charting toxic men for a while now, and The Power of the Dog comes closer to The Piano – still her abiding triumph – as an admittedly successful depiction of a milieu, only without that film’s layers and room for warmth. I hadn’t realised it’s so long since she directed (a feature). I didn’t see Bright Star, making the rather sorry In the Cut my last, way back in 2003 (I had in my head that she was responsible for the highly likeable The Dressmaker, but that was Jocelyn Moorhouse; antipodean generalisations on my part, I’m afraid).

The Power of the Dog – is there a Mandela Effect here, as I could swear, last time I looked, the movie title had no definite article attached – carries a readily identifiable and vouchable thematic quality, it’s well made and performed with conviction. All of which are more than enough to ensure its place at the Oscar table (it’s already polishing off critics’ choices as a preliminary). What it is not, however, is rewarding, regardless of how much awarding it garners.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.