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 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

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was