Skip to main content

The Power of the Dog and the Traumas of Destructive Masculinity


Jane Campion hasn’t directed a movie in thirteen years. It’s astonishing the first woman to win the Palme d’Or for Directing (on The Piano, 1993) has gone so long without making a new film. Granted, she did write and direct a well-received TV series, Top of the Lake, in the time since her 2008 romance Bright Star. But the world of cinema has missed her, especially as such an important groundbreaker for women filmmakers, lauded for her great women characters and feminist themes -in these regards, The Piano is still a favourite among many critics. So it’s a bit surprising that her 2021 return to movies is a story about a man.
And not just about a man, but that mans’ relationship to masculinity. The Power of the Dog, based on a novel by Thomas Savage, is the story of a Montana rancher in the 1920s who fancies himself a rough, hardened cowboy, and comes into conflict with the encroaching irrelevance of those values he’s lived by and appropriated. He is threatened by his brothers’ marriage to a widow and subsequent civilizing, as well as her timid son who can perhaps read him too well. Benedict Cumberbatch plays this confused, volatile, violent figure Phil Burbank, a frightening individual whose mere presence in a scene can make your skin crawl.
At one point he’s just hanging there in the background eating an apple (because of course) while his sister-in-law Rose (Kirsten Dunst) struggles to play piano for their guests. It’s an embarrassing situation that her husband George (Jesse Plemons), can’t understand -but we know exactly the cause. Every time she got down to practice there was Phil, taunting and creeping on her, suspicious of her and her intents from the moment she married his brother -and determined to subtly make her life hell. He’s a loathsome bastard and a great character, possibly Cumberbatch’s best, as he epitomizes the facets by which toxic masculine behaviour can devastate lives. It’s his quiet antagonism towards Rose that drives her to drink, his ugly mockery of her son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) that makes him retreat inwards and feel ashamed. But if he were just a ruthless sociopath he wouldn’t be so interesting -there are more layers to Phil which only further emphasize the indictment Campion is making on toxic male culture. Like racism after all, toxic masculinity is not innate, it is taught.
Bronco Henry comes up a lot in the film -and almost always by Phil. In one of the earliest scenes, while he and George are riding together, he reflects on some fond memories with their late mentor, including hunting and taking them out for their first sexual excursions. Every time the name of Bronco Henry is evoked it’s with the utmost reverence as an exemplar of manly wild west life, and he’s clearly the model to which Phil compares himself and others. Bronco Henry never settled down, so for George to do so is a betrayal –especially with a widow, already a previous mans’ sexual conquest. Bronco Henry was a rough wilderness man, a cowboy in that idealistic sense of the term, so Phil styles himself in those trappings: keeping his facial hair unkempt, his clothes dirty, and usually wearing oversized chaps. In fact, he is obsessed with the image Bronco Henry passed on to him and with Bronco Henry himself. Left to his own devices, we see he has a lot of pent-up sexual confusion over his late master as well -deeply repressed feelings and urges  that have no healthy way to manifest.
Phil is not really the rugged frontier man he likes to think he is. It’s a mask that he never takes off except in solitude, because its’ the only acceptable form of masculinity to him, and it requires he be tough and cruel and hideously misogynistic. But it’s also a terribly transparent disguise, he often overcompensates -there’s no reason he has to tan his hides or castrate his cows with his bare hands, but he does so anyway to prove he’s got the stomach for it, and the grit. His ranch-hands don’t seem to suspect anything when he rides along the bank of a river watching them bathe. Surely though it doesn’t fool Peter -who winds up in an unexpected position of power over Phil leading to a dramatic shift in their relationship. Rather than ostracize him, Phil begins to mould Peter into that same kind of hardened masculinity. Perpetuating the cycle is the only solution, the only way Phil’s been taught. The product of a warped social psychology as well as an immaculate cowboy.
Cumberbatch exhibits all this baggage with an intensity not demonstrated before, but his isn’t the only performance worthy of commendation. Dunst is at her best in years, dealing with a lot of vivid trauma, and centres one of the films’ best scenes of defiance. Plemons is quite good too –and Thomasin McKenzie is very conspicuous in her minor role as a maid. But it’s Kodi Smit-McPhee who drives the movie almost as much as Cumberbatch. Smit-McPhee has low-key been one of the best young actors of the last decade, really showing the breadth of his talents in Alpha particularly. He plays this part with a smart attentiveness to mood and body language, which evolve gradually as Peter develops and is apparently shaped by Phil. But he’s more enigmatic than Phil, more cunning, and motivated by a certain impulse. There’s a coldness there too, a dark side. Even before he’s taken under Phil’s wing, he kills and dissects a rabbit that his mother had become fond of –for the purposes of study. Smit-McPhee is very good at making you root for Peter’s sly long game, while encouraging distance in how you relate to him.
As this drama plays out, Campion directs the hell out of this film, casting her themes of repression against a scale that is both large and small –same as The Piano. She masters the atmosphere of the piece as well, honing in on those little moments of tension that make rich the films’ abiding message –Rose trying to talk to Peter about Phil for instance while he casually carries firewood in in the background; the emphasis on Phil’s POV staring down at her out of a window, and of course everything about the exemplary final scene. Her screenplay simmers with interesting dialogue and intelligent plotting, she makes strong compositional choices, and that same feminist touch that got her so noted in the 90s, is all over the films’ textured interrogation of masculinity and compassionate consideration of Rose’s place in this dreadful world.
The title comes from a Biblical passage read by Peter near the movies’ end, from Psalms 22:20: “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” The dog may refer literally to Phil, but it also equates with toxic masculinity on a whole, the film showcasing the intricate ways it flourishes and devastates, harming not only women entrapped within that sphere of influence, but men’s psyches and their relationship to the world around them. Jane Campion has made one of the best films on this topic, it was worth the wait.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...