What Brett Watched
The Power of the Dog (2021)
Each year, a film comes out that reminds us of the hive-mind of modern film criticism. The outstanding reviews for Jane Campion’s The Power of the Dog, along with the film’s front-running hype for academy awards including best picture, had me excited for Netflix Studio’s latest Oscar hope. Indeed, the film has some high quality ingredients, such as its cinematography, acting and music, but it suffers from a poor script and questionable narrative choices. Ultimately, The Power of the Dog is all bark and no bite.
Set in Montana in 1925, The Power of the Dog, based upon Tom Savages’ 1967 novel of the same name, follows brothers Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and George Burbank (Jesse Plemons); wealthy ranchers who meet an Innkeeper, Rose (Kirsten Dunst) and her son Peter (Kodi Smit-Mcphee)while on a cattle drive. George falls in love with and marries Rose, bringing Peter along. Apprehension mounts as Phil clashes with Rose and her son, leading to a shocking conclusion…or so it would seem. Campion’s adaptation of Savages’ story tries to be too clever for its own good. The narrative execution is lacking, and causes the sum to be lesser than its parts.
The elements of The Power of the Dog that work are worthy of high praise. Ari Wegner’s cinematography is stunning. Vast, empty landscapes guarded by towering snow-capped mountains and beautiful lighting evoke crushing feelings of loneliness along with a pervading sense of danger. The photography, combined with Johny Greenwood’s haunting score creates a mounting tension on the ranch, as if some unforeseen menace stalks in the shadows. Greenwood uses uneven strings, strums and plucks, and creates an unnerving heartbeat that paces the film. Greenwood’s score reminds me of his work in Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will be Blood, and it seems clear that the atmospheric tension of that film was an inspiration to Campion’s film. The music follows the tone of the film closely, and creates a sensation of dread, felt by each character. As the plot deepens, Rose falls further into a tortured madness, and Phil into an obsessive rage, and the score and cinematography highlight this psychological deterioration well.
Jane Campion’s direction is fluid. Her film flows effortlessly from scene to scene, and she receives some stellar performances from her actors, particularly Kirsten Dunst. With the tormented Rose, Dunst does some career work here. All we really know about Rose is that her husband committed suicide, and Dunst initially gives Rose a meek, passive discomfort that boils over into drunken hysteria. It’s difficult to delve too deep into the character’s motivations because of the weakness of the script, so really all we have to gauge Dunst’s performance is what we have on the surface, and she does an impressive job, and will probably be in the awards discussion. Cumberbatch also gives a commanding performance as the brooding Phil, a conflicted and agitated man with clear repressed sexual issues. Cumberbatch’s accent is a bit uneven, but this is clearly a professional actor at work, and he gives Phil a sort of haunting essence that permeates the entire ranch. Phil seems to make everyone on the ranch uncomfortable and Cumberbatch is like a thorn in a shoe here, manifesting that discomfort on screen. Jesse Plemons disappears in this film literally and figuratively; his George sees some screen time in the beginning and then sparingly, if at all throughout. When he’s on screen, Plemons mumbles around, existing mostly as a foil to Phil. That brings us to Kodi Smit-Mcfee, whose Peter is the de facto main character of the film. Mcfee definitely looks the part, playing an effeminate oddball, hopelessly out of place on the ranch. Mcfee doesn’t really do anything too special here; he does a fine job of playing to Peter’s quirkiness, and Mcfee contrasts well with the projected hyper-masculinity of Phil, but there’s nothing too cerebral going on here, especially given the nature of the plot twist. He gives few, if any clues about his character’s intentions and capabilities, which is something a better actor might be able to do, but also because the script won’t allow it in order to protect the ending.
This brings us to the narrative itself. I’m no film expert, and I simply write what I feel. This film ended and I didn’t even realize that it was over. I was still taking notes and waiting for something to happen. The Power of the Dog really had no denouement, and very little exposition throughout, and that’s fine; Many great films have little to no exposition. My problem is that the plot was not engaging and in turn, did not earn its ending or develop any of it’s main points. The third act is confusing and messy. The passage of time is poorly executed. The character motivations are extremely vague. It’s obvious that Phil has some sort of repressed homosexual desires regarding Bronco Henry, but what does this ultimately have to do with the plot? The film contends that Phil resents Rose because her femininity is a threat to the hyper-masculine facade he’s established for himself at the ranch that shields his hidden homosexual desires. So Phil is a homosexual and becomes a bully because he represses it. That seems to be the case only to set up Peter’s murder of Phil. All of this is discarded when the film suddenly becomes a revenge-murder thriller. It feels like plot-filler. And if the intention is to paint Phil as an abuser who deserves to die, then the film has to do more than offer only subtle implications of abuse. In a film where very little actually happens, these implications with no actual consequences become nothing more than a showcase for the film’s acting, direction, etc., which is not a bad thing, but also doesn’t make for a “Best Picture” elite film.
Rose’s character gives us the same stuff. She’s haunted and tormented by Phil, but we’re given very few reasons why. Phil vibes her and mocks her, but he doesn’t do anything to her that would warrant his death, and the film centers around Phil as this horrible man, when in reality he’s merely a jerk. We also get no notion that Peter is capable of being a calculated killer. He’s portrayed as the opposite of that, and we get zero indication that this character is even capable of such a diabolical plan. In other words, The Power of the Dog gives us little to no exposition because it tries to fool or confuse the audience by not revealing anything in order to seem more profound when the plot twist happens. Pretentious is word that comes to mind. Its unfair to the viewer to have a plot filled with nonsense and then conclude as if everything made sense all along. This type of ending must be earned, and The Power of the Dog did not earn it.
Jane Campion did a fine job directing The Power of the Dog, and her film contains award-winning elements, particularly the music, acting and cinematography. Those elements also work to distract us from the boring script that doesn’t do enough to earn its payoff. The film mostly serves as an exhibition for its parts; it reeks of “Oscar-bait.” While I didn’t really enjoy the film, I know many do, and I think that’s cool, but if this is the front runner for best picture, then it demonstrates the decline in the Academy’s choices over the years, while also highlighting the fact that when a film starts to trend with film critics, almost all the top critics jump on board and go with the flow. Personally, I prefer a film that’s well made and that I enjoy watching. 6.5/10
No comments:
Post a Comment