The Power of the Dog (2021)
Review of The Power of the Dog, directed by Jane Campion
I will admit, I watched this like a month or two before sitting down to finally write this review. I was meditating on the themes and concepts that this movie presented for a hot minute, but I also felt like I needed to process what I just watched. It was a difficult movie to watch because of its pacing, which is why I think The Power of the Dog is something that only really dedicated film lovers can get through. You also have to understand certain things about Westerns to understand the significance of the movie, but more on that later.
What made me return to write this review, you may ask? Well, for one thing, Campion just won the Golden Globe for Best Director for the movie, then the movie ended up winning the Golden Globe. As a big fan of Belfast, I was slightly salty, but also very unsurprised by that development. The Power of the Dog is something I truly believe can pick up the Oscar, too, because of how it appeals to the aesthetics and tastes of previous movies that have won.
Anyways, I’ve rambled, so let’s begin this review.
Two brothers are splintered when one falls in love with a woman; one of the brothers is the epitome of toxic masculinity.
That’s a loaded heading that I’ve written right there, but that’s the nutshell that drives the plot of The Power of the Dog forward. Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and George (Jesse Plemons) are two brothers living in Montana in the early 1900s. They’re very successful at what they do (they own a ranch) and are thus pretty wealthy because of their work. But one day George falls in love with a woman named Rose (Kirsten Dunst), who also has a teenage son named Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee).
Phil is the epitome of toxic masculinity in this movie. He represents the lone cowboy popularized by actors like Clint Eastwood, and he’s hotheaded and acts like he has something to prove. Naturally, he doesn’t approve of Rose and George getting together, and he especially doesn’t approve of Peter. Peter leans too feminine for Phil, and thus he relentlessly mocks him and who he is.
But Peter only gets a small sample of Phil’s rage. Rose, the woman, gets a big brunt of what he has to unleash and thus she becomes an alcoholic to cope. Before she mentions that she was against alcohol and becoming addicted to it, but Phil’s cruel words are too much for her. She falls in order to cope with her situation, even if she loves George.
Phil is very jealous of their relationship, and it shows when he mentions that he can’t feel love or has never felt that he has been loved. And, suddenly, his actions begin to make sense. He acts like a macho man in order to feel like he’s important in someone’s life, even if the only thing he’s actually doing is hurting the people around him.
Phil tries to take Peter under his wing, thus subverting the masculine front he puts up because there’s elements of homoeroticism in their interactions with each other. But Phil forgets one important detail: he treats Peter’s mother like she’s a piece of trash. And so, by the end, Peter purposely gives Phil cow leather that was diseased, leading to Phil’s death.
At the end of the day, as macho as Phil was and with a lot of people at his funeral, it will never amount to the fact that he never truly felt the love he sought out. He thinks he finds that, in some special way, with Peter, but then Peter ends up betraying him in one of the worst ways possible.
And perhaps that’s the kind act that Peter could’ve given him. Considering Phil’s personality, I don’t think he would’ve reacted too kindly to be rejected. In a way, this was one of Peter’s only choices. By getting rid of Phil, his mother, stepfather, and he could all live quieter lives with less cruelty in their household.
The Power of the Dog is very much a slow burn, and if you can’t handle the sweeping shots of the American West (that were actually filmed in New Zealand), casual animal cruelty, or the fact that Phil is a complete and utter asshole for the majority of the movie, then you’re not going to have fun watching this. I think the acting was absolutely stellar, that’s for sure, and I think that Kodi Smit-McPhee has a decent shot at picking up an Oscar for his role.
Overall Thoughts
In theory, it’s a good movie. It does an interesting job in subverting the traditional tropes of the Western genre, which is a typically hyper-masculinity cranked up to the max. I found the movie too slow, however, for me to keep latching on enough to care. While I did end up finishing the movie, I struggled to pay attention and really had to force myself into keeping my eyes on the screen. The acting and scenery is absolutely divine, although the animal torture parts were a bit jarring. I get that they’re kind of necessary to show how cruel Phil is, but I hope that they weren’t actually harmed. It’s a movie worth watching once, savoring it, and if you enjoy it enough to watch again go ahead. I’ll return to it in my research, and while I’m kind of shitting on it I understand that it is genuinely a good movie. The pacing’s just a bit off and it’s not my cup of tea.
