I made a complete, 360-degree, about-face on this movie.
I came across The Power of the Dog while scrolling through Netflix and, having heard some vague buzz about it, decided to give it a look-see. Two hours later, I was downright angry. I HATED it, and was literally resentful of the fact that I had seemingly wasted two hours of my life on it. I found it deadly dull as well as poorly acted, maybe even somewhat inscrutable.
Then a funny thing happened.
Perhaps in an attempt to validate my negative opinion of the film, I started reading some of the reviews. To my surprise, not only were they largely positive, but they were quite eye-opening as well. Then I took it a step further: I downloaded the book onto my Kindle and spent the next few days immersed in that, looking for clues to a greater appreciation of the movie.
And NOW I see what all the fuss is about!
The Power of the Dog tells the story of Phil, a closeted homosexual "cowboy" and his mean-spirited reaction to the arrival on the scene of his brother's new wife Rose and her effeminate-appearing teenage son Peter. Phil becomes resentful of Rose for intruding into the family and into his way of life and seeks to intimidate and destroy her, but ends up being destroyed by Peter, who sees it as his duty to protect his beloved mother. What makes the story so edgy is the unspoken nature of the relationship - laden with tension - between Phil and Peter.
It is very rare for a movie to be better than the book on which it is based, but now having partaken of both, I would have to say that Jane Campion did a commendable job transferring this story to the screen. What I initially took as "deadly dull" plotting and "poor" acting in fact simply mirror - to a T - the content and pacing of the book. This was not a book full of action. Rather, it was an in-depth character study, as well as a view into personal motivations and inter-personal dynamics and machinations.
The plotline of the movie certainly "tweaks" the storyline of the book. For instance, the scene with Phil and the scarf is nowhere to be found in the book. But I feel this addition to the movie was necessary to accentuate an aspect of his character that was even more nuanced in the book. For the most part, however, despite a few additions which I thought to be essential to the understanding of this character study, the movie was remarkably faithful to the book in both plot and in tone.
A word about "Bronco Henry." He is the "ghost" character of this movie, if you will. (And I liked the fact that he does not appear as a casted actor.) Yes, his name is mentioned innumerable times in the book, but the movie makes a greater insinuation than does the book about his true role in Phil's life. Again, I felt this to be essential to the story.
The movie makes skillful use of foreshadowing techniques - even more so than did the book. The mention of anthrax and of the cuts to Phil's hard-working hands, for instance, could very easily have gotten lost in a 300-page book, but were put into better focus in the movie, although the subtlety was not lost and the ending still came as a surprise.
Notwithstanding my first impression of this movie as a whole, Benedict Cumberbatch was superb in the role of Phil. I thought - at first - that Jesse Plemons and Kirsten Dunst were the two worst actors that I had ever seen on screen, but then I came to the realization that they were both PERFECT for the roles as expressed in the book, the taciturn George and his fragile wife Rose. I almost feel like I owe them an apology. Kodi Smit-McPhee was also perfect as the "sissified" but calculating (and possibly sociopathic) Peter.
I recall reading somewhere that the book on which this story is based, having been published in 1967, had been out of print for many years. And that is a pity. I am glad to know that the release of the movie has pushed the book out of the shadows. Most people will not have the inclination to read the book - either before or after viewing the movie - but I found it to be an illuminating and worthwhile endeavor.
This movie is a western, a psychological thriller (even though truthfully it might not seem particularly "thrilling") and a tense family drama all rolled into one. A well-crafted movie (even if I did not think so at first) full of subtleties and nuances. In this movie, what goes UNspoken is everything! Definitely a thinking person's cinematic experience. SO glad I gave it a second chance!
I came across The Power of the Dog while scrolling through Netflix and, having heard some vague buzz about it, decided to give it a look-see. Two hours later, I was downright angry. I HATED it, and was literally resentful of the fact that I had seemingly wasted two hours of my life on it. I found it deadly dull as well as poorly acted, maybe even somewhat inscrutable.
Then a funny thing happened.
Perhaps in an attempt to validate my negative opinion of the film, I started reading some of the reviews. To my surprise, not only were they largely positive, but they were quite eye-opening as well. Then I took it a step further: I downloaded the book onto my Kindle and spent the next few days immersed in that, looking for clues to a greater appreciation of the movie.
And NOW I see what all the fuss is about!
The Power of the Dog tells the story of Phil, a closeted homosexual "cowboy" and his mean-spirited reaction to the arrival on the scene of his brother's new wife Rose and her effeminate-appearing teenage son Peter. Phil becomes resentful of Rose for intruding into the family and into his way of life and seeks to intimidate and destroy her, but ends up being destroyed by Peter, who sees it as his duty to protect his beloved mother. What makes the story so edgy is the unspoken nature of the relationship - laden with tension - between Phil and Peter.
It is very rare for a movie to be better than the book on which it is based, but now having partaken of both, I would have to say that Jane Campion did a commendable job transferring this story to the screen. What I initially took as "deadly dull" plotting and "poor" acting in fact simply mirror - to a T - the content and pacing of the book. This was not a book full of action. Rather, it was an in-depth character study, as well as a view into personal motivations and inter-personal dynamics and machinations.
The plotline of the movie certainly "tweaks" the storyline of the book. For instance, the scene with Phil and the scarf is nowhere to be found in the book. But I feel this addition to the movie was necessary to accentuate an aspect of his character that was even more nuanced in the book. For the most part, however, despite a few additions which I thought to be essential to the understanding of this character study, the movie was remarkably faithful to the book in both plot and in tone.
A word about "Bronco Henry." He is the "ghost" character of this movie, if you will. (And I liked the fact that he does not appear as a casted actor.) Yes, his name is mentioned innumerable times in the book, but the movie makes a greater insinuation than does the book about his true role in Phil's life. Again, I felt this to be essential to the story.
The movie makes skillful use of foreshadowing techniques - even more so than did the book. The mention of anthrax and of the cuts to Phil's hard-working hands, for instance, could very easily have gotten lost in a 300-page book, but were put into better focus in the movie, although the subtlety was not lost and the ending still came as a surprise.
Notwithstanding my first impression of this movie as a whole, Benedict Cumberbatch was superb in the role of Phil. I thought - at first - that Jesse Plemons and Kirsten Dunst were the two worst actors that I had ever seen on screen, but then I came to the realization that they were both PERFECT for the roles as expressed in the book, the taciturn George and his fragile wife Rose. I almost feel like I owe them an apology. Kodi Smit-McPhee was also perfect as the "sissified" but calculating (and possibly sociopathic) Peter.
I recall reading somewhere that the book on which this story is based, having been published in 1967, had been out of print for many years. And that is a pity. I am glad to know that the release of the movie has pushed the book out of the shadows. Most people will not have the inclination to read the book - either before or after viewing the movie - but I found it to be an illuminating and worthwhile endeavor.
This movie is a western, a psychological thriller (even though truthfully it might not seem particularly "thrilling") and a tense family drama all rolled into one. A well-crafted movie (even if I did not think so at first) full of subtleties and nuances. In this movie, what goes UNspoken is everything! Definitely a thinking person's cinematic experience. SO glad I gave it a second chance!
Tell Your Friends