OK, that wasn’t where I was expecting the film to go…is that supposed to impress me? Here’s what I understood: You gave me a film with Benedict Cumberbatch, Jesse Plemons, and Kirsten Dunst … and you made me root for Kodi Smit-McPhee. Do you want to know the textbook definition of a failed film is? The one where you’re asked to root for Kodi Smit-McPhee.
It’s Montana of 1925 and Benedict Cumberbatch is once again showing us exactly how American he can be. What’s more American than being a Western bronco-ridin’ cattle boss? I know, being a douchebag Western bronco-ridin’ cattle boss as Phil (Cumberbatch) demonstrates almost immediately when he ridicules the effeminate tendencies of the widow innkeeper’s son, Peter (Smit-McPhee). In the next scene, of course, they’re family as Phil’s more urbane brother George (Plemons) marries the widow (Dunst). There’s nothin’ like family.
Aside from having an enigmatic biblically-sourced title, The Power of the Dog is most notable for making me wonder why I’m watching it … normally, I’d be excited for Cumberbatch, but Phil establishes early on that he’s an insecure asshole (which is pretty much my least favorite type of character), so it’s on to his brother George, who mostly hems and haws before disappearing completely, and then to the widow Rose, who exhibits her own intense insecurity through alcoholism. “Alcoholic” is, in fact, the only word that comes to mind when describing her character.
That leaves Peter. I can’t say I was very taken with Peter, either. In a world of Montana cattle ranching, Peter is a butterfly collector. In a world of cowboy boots, spurs, and lariats, Peter has nurse shoes and homoerotic period porn. And in a world of gruff men, Peter is an adult sized child, out of his depth everywhere he goes … which
would be fine if there were something to truly like or admire about Peter – his obsession with anatomy, maybe?—do we like/admire the kid who adopts a pet bunny, then kills it in order to dissect the poor thing? Gee, I dunno … maybe?
Like a tumbleweed in the desert, this movie wanders for a bit before getting around to the conflict of Phil v. Peter. And I can’t say we’re fond of it, because Peter is clearly in over his head. Either Phil is going to make Peter into Phil, which is something we don’t really want … or Phil is going to break and humiliate Peter (like he’s already done), which is also something we do not want. Well, gosh, film, where ya gonna go? And will I care when you get there?
Given the setting, The Power of the Dog is a tad modern (if I can call it that) compared to most Westerns. Does that matter? Probably not, except that Peter has access to medical knowledge that he probably wouldn’t have had at the time most Westerns take place. So … Peter’s dreams of becoming a doctor are … likelier, I guess? I dunno. None of this makes me like Phil, George, Rose, or Peter any better which-again-makes me question why I’m watching this film. Jane Campion writes and directs; she knows what she’s doing, more-or-less, but even in the films of hers I enjoy, I generally still am left with the “why am I watching this?” feeling. That doesn’t end when you finish this one.
This Benedictine great Western slog
Inserted neatly into my blog
Was the title deceptive
Or perhaps perceptive?
Because the film was most surely a dog
Rated R, 126 Minutes
Director: Jane Campion
Writer: Jane Campion
Genre: What am I rooting for?
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: People who believe in Westerns
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: People who believe in heroes
