The Power Of The Dog drops Benedict Cumberbatch into a haunting, troubling Western
Jane Campion finally returns to movie screens with this sensual take on the revisionist oater
Film Reviews The Power of the Dog
Although manifest destiny and westward expansion have left indelible marks on the national consciousness, America isn’t the only country to wrestle with the psychological aftermath of a genocidal past. Jane Campion is from New Zealand, another nation scarred by its colonialist history. She shot her latest film, the revisionist Western The Power Of The Dog, in her homeland, but it’s set in rural Montana. The themes resonate across continents and centuries. The approach, nonetheless, is distinctly Campion.
Westerns have also been deconstructing toxic masculinity for ages. The Thomas Savage novel on which The Power Of The Dog is based got there way back in 1967. But Campion approaches the task with a sensual touch few of her peers possess—and with an equally uncommon understanding of where humanity’s darkest and most transcendent impulses intersect. In The Power Of The Dog, ordinary life is a soap bubble that can burst at the slightest touch.
Campion’s films frequently use families to explore the commingling of personal and political violence, and The Power Of The Dog fits this mold. At its core, the story is about two brothers, Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and George Burbank (Jesse Plemons), wealthy ranchers in 1920s Montana whose tony East Coast upbringing has affected each of them in different ways. George retains the stuffed-shirt manners of their childhood, dressing in expensive suits and taking care of the business side of the ranch. Phil, meanwhile, denies his roots completely, remaking himself in the image of his idol, Bronco Henry, the cowboy who taught him the ways of the open range.
Part of Phil’s narrow conception of masculinity is a hatred of anything he considers soft or weak—including George, who Phil mercilessly bullies about his weight, tossing around the callous nickname “Fatso.” Into this already volatile situation comes Rose (Kirsten Dunst), a widow running a frontier restaurant, and her son, Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee), who accompanies Rose to the Burbank ranch after George takes her as his wife. The initial sweetness of George and Rose’s relationship doesn’t last long, soured both by Phil’s casual cruelty and by the couple’s class divide. As Rose sinks deeper into alcoholism, the relationships begin to shift in unexpected, unlikely, and ultimately devious ways.
The Power Of The Dog divulges its secrets in deliberate, measured fashion, growing richer with each new reveal. The dialogue is minimal, as are backstories and exposition. Campion relies on visual cues to convey subtle nuances in the dynamics between the characters, much like the changing of the seasons outside the ranch house’s dark wood walls. The significance of a moment may not be clear until later on in the film. Take, for example, Rose downing a cocktail in a single gulp after failing to impress George’s dinner guests—an impulsive act that will turn out to be life-altering.
The performances are similarly layered. Although he’s playing a character who’s feared by everyone around him, Cumberbatch refrains from showy outbursts, opting instead to convey Phil’s rigid worldview through stiff posture, hateful words, and an intense, beady stare. Dunst hides Rose’s despair until she can’t anymore, fear and sadness tumbling out of her as she drunkenly stumbles barefoot across the ranch yard wearing nothing but a slip. George has no such tipping point; his emotions stay dammed up throughout, churning behind the levee of respectability. Smit-McPhee’s sensitive, scholarly Peter similarly contains turbulent inner depths, as we learn when a pet rabbit becomes a dissection model for the aspiring physician.
Eventually, we learn new information that complicates our view of Phil as a straightforward villain, just as we learn that Peter may not be as harmless as he seems. This is where Campion’s sensuality comes out, hinting at Phil’s inner life with a scene where Cumberbatch caresses his body with a scarf monogrammed with the initials of his former lover. The revelation itself is a bit obvious, amounting to a truism that’s become a cliché. But considering the book was written more than 50 years ago, it seems fair to give that a pass.
Besides, Campion brings her own touch to the concept. Here, imagery eroticizing cowboy iconography mixes with tributes to the great masters of Westerns past: Campion returns again and again to the image of Phil, sometimes with Peter by his side, silhouetted against the doorway of a barn à la John Wayne in The Searchers. This character, perhaps, is a more truthful depiction of the macho cowboy type Wayne spent his career playing—conflicted, tortured, secretive, cruel.
Late in the story, a quote from Psalm 22:20 explains the film’s title: “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” That particular verse refers to ancient symbolism of dogs as scavengers who prey on the vulnerable. But the title could just as easily refer to a scene where Phil asks Peter what he sees when he looks at the shadows dotting the mountain that looms over the Burbank ranch. Peter says he sees the outline of a dog, its snout projected across the rock face. This power, the ability to look deeper and see beyond the obvious, will be essential to Peter’s survival. It’s essential to Campion’s film, too.
109 Comments
The film rights to the Don Winslow novel of the same name (and its sequel) have been bought, so I wonder what title they’ll use for that.
Waited for apparently obligatory use of the word “oater”. Ah right in the description..
But how will people know the dog is evil?
Ooo have been looking forward to this since the trailer came out – glad to see it’s getting great reviews. Fun fact: Thomas Savage, the author of the book this is based on, used to date (to the extent gay men in the 50’s “dated”) Tomie DePaola, the children’s book icon who created Strega Nona, Big Anthony, etc.
As the child of a preschool teacher, I’m definitely going to have to look into this more.Also interesting in terms of DePaola’s various Western-themed stories. Which sort of ran the gamut in terms of degrees of cultural appropriation…
I’m looking up their wikipedia pages, and it doesn’t seem like they lived in the same state in the 50s, although they both would have been in the northeast.
Guess it was the early 60s actually: https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=wwo
The early 60s are often conflated with the 50s. It has been said that “the sixties” didn’t really begin until JFK’s assassination.
This looks super interesting, although I have to wonder if “cowboy is a huge fucking asshole to Kirsten Dunst for two hours” might be a hard sell to the general public.
Fuck the public. I’m going to be hooking There Will Be Blood Pt. 2 straight into my veins.
They’re ranchers. So let’s go with There Will Be Cud.
Funny you should mention that movie, as Mr. Cumberbatch seems to be aiming at becoming the successor to Daniel Day Lewis…
Yeah but what if it was gay cowboys!
What a novel concept!
There Will Be Brokeback, or Oil!
it’s only about an hour or so of that specific thing.
Why?
Do you think that the AVClub comments section resembles “the general public” in any way, shape or form?
I know it’s debatable but i think Jesse Plemons is the new Phillip Seymour Hoffman.He’s got great acting range but people didn’t acknowledge it yet.
PT Anderson made it pretty explicit by casting them as father and son in The Master.
I think we need to see Jesse Plemmons in more lead roles for that comparison . That was one of the things great about PSH . He could both be a great supporting actor and carry a movie on his own shoulders as the lead .
They are both blond, heavyset, and fairly decent actors.
He’s terrific. Which makes it a real shame that this movie gives him no actual character to play, and then shuffles him offstage for most of the second half, for no good reason.
“He’s got great acting range but people didn’t acknowledge it yet.”
Or people haven’t given him anything that has needed range.
“oater”I love how critics, and critics alone*, have their own special word for “western” that literally no one else uses.*and crossword constructors, for some reason.
Lots of people say oater.
Do they though?
Only Oakies say oater.
No they don’t.
Mainly Canadian astronomers.
Well there you go. I’m Canadian and hang around with astronomy buffs, so that’s where I’ve heard it. And then there’s my friend Pellonpaa, a devoted fan of Westerns, who uses the word all the time.
+1
Literally noone says that.
It’s terrible. They need to retire it. Dumb word that serves no useful purpose except to remind you that you’re reading a movie critic.
Wow, the word “oater” really sticks in your craw huh?
Next thing you know you’ll be banning “boffo,” “chantoozie,” and “ankle,” as in “Get outta here, ya bum. Ankle!”
Replace it with another phrase from the same era: horse opera.
It annoys me because I’m not clear on what it means. Is it a specific kind of western? Or does it just mean “Western”?Edit: Looked it up. Defined as “a western movie or tv show.” So yeah. A unnecessary and pretentious word
I first encountered it a description for more of a range / cowboy movie. You know, because of horses. A couple of rich ranchers with relationship issues definitely would not qualify.
Sure, and how is that not just “a Western”?
Given how it’s use has evolved…it is just a “look at me” word for western.
“Sure, and how is that not just “a Western”?”
Why are you only angry about one genre’s alternate names? Every genre has stupid names people give them but somehow oater is the only one that gets your goat?
Contraction of “oatburner,” I figure. Can’t say I remember encountering it outside the realm of movie criticism.
I assumed it was like about horses and horses eat … oats? I don’t understand why we need it.
“A unnecessary and pretentious word”
Yeah, oater is definitely pretentious.
*and crossword constructors, for some reasonLook. There are only so many people involved in newspaper production (digital or otherwise). They talk to and read each other sometimes.
Crossword constructors have a tough gig. They NEED Oater. They also need Emu, and Omit, and Sty, and Abs, and ETA, and Asap, and Sass, and Oral, and
acai, Hun, UAE, Aral, Ural, elan, otro, emit, Oreo…
…Erse, gavin, spry…
If Esai Morales did not exist, crossword constructors would have to invent him.
Once you figure this out, crosswords become fairly easy. I have people amazed that I can do the Saturday New York Times, but honestly do enough of them and the same words keep popping up. It’s probably how I encountered the word ‘oater’ in the first place.
Wanna know how I know what an ERNE is?Crosswords became my pandemic hobby/obsession. My proudest accomplishment is finishing a Saturday NY Times puzzle in just under 20 minutes. My average is still closer to an hour though.
That’s great! I think my personal best for a Saturday is still just under 30 minutes. I have no idea how people eventually zoom through them, but maybe one day my time will come.
Yeah, the times for the top solvers are insane—3 minutes for a Monday, 10 minutes for a Saturday, etc. I don’t even know how they can read that fast. I’d be happy to just perform at the “talented amateur” level consistently.
I’ve learned most of my sports and religious knowledge from crossword puzzles.
“My proudest accomplishment is finishing a Saturday NY Times puzzle in just under 20 minutes.”
WOW!!!
You definitely need to learn the language of crossword puzzles! I started when I was unemployed about 15 years ago and it would take me all day, and lots of googling and looking up words. Now I can do them in record time!
My coworkers were gobsmacked I could do the Chicago RedEye crossword in under 10 min (they’re easily impressed), but it was like only a hundred different words and eventually even the clues recycled.
We all need some oral
tori (wheels) and EMO (which is totally defunct now)
I assume they made the term up so they don’t need to use the word “western” repetitively in consecutive sentences or in the title and again in the description. Unfortunately the cure is more annoying than the disease.
I’ve clearly been out of the proverbial loop, or lasso I guess. I’ve never heard this term. Apparently I am the only one.
I call them six gun shooty shooters
It has three different vowels out of five letters. It’s a crossword constructor’s dream.
I learned that term from crossword puzzles!
kudos on this unhinged thread!
Off-topic, sure, but “unhinged” seems a little harsh.
Crossword puzzles— the last refuge for the criminally insane and psychotic conspiracy theorists, unhinged indeed
Nobody says horse opera either. Oater at least is short enough for headlines.
Is it me, or does that horse’s butthole look like a perfect capital A? The conspiracy theorist in me wants to know.
But what does it MEAN?
So, fairly recently I watched “The Searchers” expecting some kind of masterpiece of windswept Western plains and a stoic, tight-lipped John Wayne. It was so much weirder than that. A Technicolor ramble that went on and on and was tonally all over the place.
I prefer Stagecoach. Particularly the denunciation of evil destructive capitalists. And John Wayne playing a really sweet guy.
Yeah, precisely, it’s that. I blame your reaction to the absolutely awful state of movie criticism for canon movies, which consists of jyst hyperboles.Btw I love The Searchers.
thats a feature, not a bug.
I don’t disagree (although some elements don’t hold up imho), it’s just the way people talk about it I expected something totally different.
it rambles a bit for me too, and the mix of studio and location is a bit clunky, but i put that down to the norms of the time. Kinda adds to the weirdness and ultimate dislocation of the Wayne character. That last frame (literally) is astonishing.
The only major major issue I really notice anymore is when are camping while on the trail and it looks so damn fake. I think part of it is those scenes weren’t shot with a 4k HD mindset but its definitely distracting.
thats the one! And it’s even worse when the location shots are so gorgeous.
Rio Bravo is my go to John Wayne movie.
“tonally all over the place” A John Ford movie.
It’s funny how people here have a strong reaction against the word “oater” when this is one of the few reviews, or even news piece in Av Club that does not go to the really trite route of hyperbole, mentioning the same pop culture icons over and over or creating discussions about the most boring and inane statements from Tarantino or Ridley Scott, but hey. I am just hoping that I am closer to Katie’s opinions that I usually am, because I think that Campion is good at managing similar tropes to western ones, she is fantastic at visuals and fantastic at reflecting busy trauma and that stuff. Bojack Horseman reduced her as a feminist joke that no one is interested in, but I feel she has a view, a vision, that few other directors have. So I am hyped for this. Despite Benedict Cumberbatch. God bless him, but I cannot picture him as a western man.
It’s a very good review, ‘oater’ aside.
Then she shouldn’t have led with oater. It’s overused at this point, and based upon the review really not relevant to this particular story.But yeah, solid review that has me interested, so mission accomplished.
Wait, did Bojack talk shit about Jane Campion? Unacceptable. Who do I call
It sounds depressing and as mean-spirited as Phil.
Oater brings in boffo box-office blammo! While the horse opera is nearly a two-hander it trumps sword-and-sandal flicks by tyro scribes purple monkey dishwasher!
Scribe silenced by superfluous verbosity!
Jane Campion has been missed in cinema, but can someone PLEASE show me the man and woman who could possibly have generated both Benedict Cumberbatch and Jesse Plemons?
And can we also please dispel the notion that anything set in the 1920’s can ever be described as a “western”? When the first motor car arrives in a state, province or territory, that place is off-limits for westerns.What you have here, is not a “western”, but a “drama set on a ranch”. Thank you.
Since your definition would exclude The Wild Bunch from being a western, no, motion rejected.
“Hell or a High Water” is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY a western.
They couldn’t have picked two actors who look less alike to play brothers, could they? Unless they are half brothers….but even still.
damn this was great, Dunst and Cumberbatch really are incredible in it. Watching the light in Dunst’s eyes slowly dim scene to scene made you just want to pull her out of the screen and save her from Cumberbatch. Also just a great examination of two gay characters of the time, one repressed and the other unable to hide it, and how the world has left them with a lot of feelings of detachment regardless of how they chose to interact with their queerness.
This JUST made it to Netflix so I am hoping there is more discussion. I’m having a bit of trouble getting through it…it’s very well made but it’s pretty…obvious? Like the whole thing is kind of lacking in subtlety so far.
I don’t think it’s obvious to lots of people though. I watched with some older family who still have some firm rooted beliefs in toxic masculinity, and they didn’t see the ending coming at all. I think Campion just wanted to play with the subversive nature of queerdom and our only liberation from toxic masculinity is its literal destruction, but seems it also worked as twist for lots of people too.Definitely my favourite movie of the year.
Two hours of being hit over the head by some of the most ham-fisted allusions to homosexuality I have ever seen. People who keep saying you have to watch it twice to get its subtlety must have been looking at their phones the first time.
SPOILERS I am sorry to say I kind of agree…it was pretty, and Kirsten Dunst made basically cringe drama, she was excellent, it was so painful to watch her undergo humiliation after humiliation and you felt every thorn. All the performances were good, but in service of something that is less than the whole. Apart from the “grooming” aspect, if it were clearer that Phil had fallen in love with Pete then it would have perhaps reached the tragic romance level it aspired to…sharing a cigarette is one thing, but if they’d had Phil strong enough to say the boy killed him but accept it, that could have been powerful
I haven’t seen the movie, but based on reading the review alone it seems pretty obvious. I know it got good reviews (and now a bunch of Oscar nominations), but it sounds kinda trite.
Watch it all the way through if you haven’t yet.
Thank you for this. I feel seen.
Great review. It’s a little slow, but beautifully shot. Best work I’ve seen from Dunst. Loved the ending.
Power of the dog could also be alcohol, no?SPOILERS!Anybody else wonder if young master Pete had anything to do with his father? This didn’t seem like his first rodeo, pardon the turn of phrase.
Once I realized what happened to Phil, I started to wonder the same.
The reason I thought maybe not was because I couldn’t quite figure out how old Peter would have been when that happened, but I guess if he was old enough to extricate dad, he was probably old enough to have engineered the scenario. Understanding that this is fiction, but this was set post Flexner, do you think a medical school would have actually taken him?
Doesn’t he visit his father’s grave early on in the film? I thought it said he died in 1925, same year the movie is set.
I didn’t think so. I saw the incident with his father as one of the things to what led Peter to developing a damaged undercurrent within him as well as having the strength to fix things (i.e. cut the rope).
There was a lot of camera attention put on the fire rope in his room early on. Could have been foreshadowing, could have been hinting at something darker.
Judging by the dessert choice at the Governor’s dinner…we came perilously close to finally paying off the South Park joke about gay cowboys eating pudding.