So Who's Watching "Power of the Dog"?

Unfortunately, very, very few people want to go into acting, so they have to choose from the small pool that's available.

It's was great. I woke up the next day thinking about it, which is one sign of good movie for me. I gasped at the final scene in the barn when it was revealed what was going on and who was in control.

Who would OP have cast instead? I haven't yet seen the film so I have no dog in this fight, I'm just curious.

[QUOTE] He's not macho

Honey, did you miss the part where is machismo is an over-compensation because he’s a closeted gay?

OP, we beg leave to disagree

[quote] I gasped at the final scene in the barn when it was revealed what was going on

What was going on?

[quote] The whole movie fails because of the casting of Benedict Cumberbatch

What can you expect? The director of this movie hates Men!

She is vicious.

I actually thought Cumberbatch was good (and at his hottest), but the second half was too rushed. Phantom Thread did a more effective job of telling a story in which a seemingly timid person gains the upper hand in a relstionship with a domineering person.

Any nudity in this show?

Best movie I've seen in several years. Jane Campion is a master. What an ending.

Yes, a few scenes of men bathing in a lake...and Cumberbatch also bathing in a lake.

The very nude scene with the main character diddling with his dong kinda rules out most American actors since the dong has to be uncut though.

Maybe OP was thinking of some actors from her era, the like of Errol Flynn or Cary Grant?

I spent the first half of the movie thinking Cumberbatch was horribly cast and the second half thinking it was a brilliant piece of casting. Once you learned that he was university-educated and spoke Latin, your view of who he really was changed entirely and the actorly mannerisms and faux machismo started to make sense.

Dunst and Smit-McPhee were exceptional.

SPOILER ALERT: I liked the film but can someone explain to me how the ending isn't just "another dead f*g paying for his sins"? Killed by the gay he was trying to help, no less. I was hoping they would fill something each needed from the other and it would be touching. I hate sounding like I am at the SF Gay Film Festival but how is this gay positive? Or is that, too, out of style?

Imagine "Brokeback" with Ennis killing Jake in gay frustration. Who'd want that? This is a cousin to the same situation.

[quote] the dong

Do we see the dong?

[quote] SPOILER ALERT: I liked the film but can someone explain to me how the ending isn't just "another dead f*g paying for his sins"? Killed by the gay he was trying to help, no less. I was hoping they would fill something each needed from the other and it would be touching. I hate sounding like I am at the SF Gay Film Festival but how is this gay positive? Or is that, too, out of style?

I'd buy that argument if this were 1981 still; but it's hardly as if today we don't have positive portrayals of gay men on film and TV.

In 2021, saying that we cannot have a gay character who can be a villain is pretty shallow and limiting.

And this character is NOTHING like Ennis, other than that he's gay and works on a ranch in the West--and this story takes place two generations earlier.

I reject your out-of-date arguments.

You see his wiener briefly when he takes a mud bath.

[quote] I reject your out-of-date arguments.

What do you mean?

Brokeback Mountain was made in 2005 and set in 1963.

Power of the Dog was made in 2020 and set in 1925.

Blech. I am going to pretend the final reel ends sweetly with the kid having softened Phil (and made him face the truth) and Phil becoming a decent man and helping the boy understand his own sexuality (without molesting him, of course). More "Tender Mercies" than this ugly Frau friendly narrative. Even Phil playing his banjo with the piano led us to think he was growing and accepting and then... (cue Marilyn Monroe in the old ENQUIRER commercial) "Mur-der!'

Loved the first 7 reels, hated the last one.

Phil didn't die because he was gay. He died because he was making life hell for Rose and Peter decided to do something about it. Phil and Peter's gayness is almost irrelevant.

[quote] Even Phil playing his banjo with the piano led us to think he was growing and accepting and then...

No, no, no. Phil played his banjo upstairs while she was playing the piano to bully her and mock her complete lack of talent. He really, really hated her, and that attitude never changed.

Peter chose his mother over Phil. It was a fantastic ending because Phil and Peter's relationship had nothing to do with the ending (in the end). It was Peter and Rose's relationship that ultimately mattered. Loyalty on the ranch means everything. Peter's belonged to his mother and to her only.

And for good reason. A gay kid in that world has to be wiser than everyone, more prudent than god and without blinders.

It's an incredible film.

Will I come out of this movie feeling abused and dirty?

Kodi Smit-McPhee (Pete) said in an interview that he and Kirsten Dunst made up a story that wasn't in the script that would further explain the bond between the mother and the son. They imagined that Pete also killed his father and that his mother knew about it. (Pete was the one who found his father dead from supposed suicide. The audience only hears Pete describe what happened, nothing is shown.) Later Kodi was surprised that some in the audience thought the very same thing even though it wasn't explicitly in the script.

[quote] Kodi Smit-McPhee

This kid needs to change his name.

Just watched it. Loved it. Wish I had seen it on the big screen.

SPOILER ALERT

After watching and loving this movie I thought of it as being an origin film about an old timey serial killer.

I thought this would be an art house, nobody sees it, film. But it's #3 on Netflix's list of most watched programs, so maybe it will have a decent-sized audience.

I really liked it. A very non-conventional movie but very good.

The film's ending stays true to the book, which was written by a gay (or at least bi) man, Tom Savage--not by a woman.

Just finished it. WOW. Great movie. Kodi Smit-McPhee was excellent. Fantastic ending.

Koti Smit-McPhee is even more alien looking than Anya Taylor-Joy. I didn't think that was possible.

This was probably the ugliest cast ever in a major motion picture since "Freaks."

I really couldn’t watch it since there was very little gender and racial minority representation. I kept waiting for diversity. Do better.

There were very few POC living and working in 1920s upper class Montana ranching r33. I do hope you're joking.

Kodi Smit-McPhee talked with the New York Times about how his disease helped him relate to Pete, the character he played in the film.

[quote] Q: When you were 16, you were diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, a medical condition that causes vertebrae to fuse and results in chronic pain. Did you relate to Peter’s sense of being an outsider?

[quote] A: Absolutely. I wasn’t as physically capable as other kids, and that brought me a lot of grief in my younger years before I learned how to deal with it. But I used the chronic pain and the emotions to fuel me further into my endeavor with curiosity. I found myself in libraries a lot; I would find heaps of books on things that transmuted apathy into a sense of control or freedom. But my knowledge didn’t help me become someone who wasn’t an outcast, it just made me grateful for being an outcast because of where it took me intellectually, spiritually and physically.

Awesome movie - I wasn't going to watch it but I did. They kid does look like a space alien. This film was much better than the reviews I read indicated. I think part of the problem was this was a white movie - about white men - and some reviewers felt they had be woke and attack it.

Most of the reviews were good. Rottentomatoes logged 228 reviews for the movie and scored it at 96%. The audience rating was 71%.

MetaCritic, which has the scale that reflects mixed reviews as well as positive and negative reviews, gave it a score of 89.

R34 is a joker.

I'm half way through it. I am of BC but so far I also feel like he is miscast in this. He seems out of his element.

[quote]Who would OP have cast instead? I haven't yet seen the film so I have no dog in this fight, I'm just curious.

Tom Hardy

[quote] I really couldn’t watch it since there was very little gender and racial minority representation. I kept waiting for diversity. Do better.

But Cody Spit-McSmee is "differently-abled", R34.

He is wall-eyed.

First thread, with the nude caps and plot discussion

I thought it was a masterpiece. It seems simple enough in the beginning but slowly morphs into something complex and unnerving. I think Kodi Smit McPhee was phenomenal. And the filmmaking itself was breathtaking. Jane Campion is fucking brilliant.

And OF COURSE 1/2 this thread wants a happy rainbow gay ending with them going off into the sunset. Bleah.

[quote]I kept waiting for diversity.

Yeah, like at least one attractive cast member.

[quote]I kept waiting for diversity.

Yeah, like at least one attractive cast member.

[quote] I liked the film but can someone explain to me how the ending isn't just "another dead f*g paying for his sins"? Killed by the gay he was trying to help, no less.

Trying to "help"? Bullshit. After ridiculing the kid for being too fussy, he decides to 'mentor' him in the way that Bronco Henry 'mentored' him - by making him a vile toxic man who couldn't live his life in the truth but made everyone around him miserable. Peter draws and makes beautiful things, is delicate and dedicated to being a doctor. He doesn't try to hide who he is. He is the braver gay man of the two. Killing another toxic man while taking care of his mother - what is not to love? I fucking loved the ending, as it subverted these conventions of what a man was supposed to act like. Peter was the protector and stronger, in the end, than Phil.

I saw this film at TIFF and it did indeed look gorgeous on a big screen. Benedict and Kodi spoke after the film. That kid is super tall and gangly, but he gave very thoughtful answers. I thought he and Dunst were sensational, too. Cumberbatch felt a bit over the top in some scenes (some lines made me lol) but by the end, it felt appropriate to the character.

“ Yeah, like at least one attractive cast member.”

Stick to Bravo and TikTok, Kwayne!!

I think naming a gay movie "Dog Power" and then not featuring one character that impels me to cry "woof!" is an ugly bait and switch. We're barely out of the "Love Wins" era, and now precariously close to a "but not for long!" backlash from our Trumpy Supreme Court, and we're supposed to welcome a storyline that features homicidal homosexuals on top of homosexual child molesters? And this is the fourth most watched presentation on the 'gay bashing central' entertainment streaming service Netflix? Is Pride now so passe that one muddy dingle is enough to excuse a hit piece as "art"? You "Dog Power" boosters are no better than Smithers tossing Lisa Lionheart aside for Malibu Stacy with a new hat doll.

I’m curious about that piece of cloth Phil was cherishing in the river when he was caught by the kid. What was it?

Phil was masturbating with a handkerchief he got from Bronco Henry.

Just finished it. Wanted to like it. Love Jane Campion. But I hated it. BC was super actory and it overall came across like a weak There Will Be Blood, including the dissonant music. I thought the kid and Jesse Plemons were good though.

I think George knew about Bronco Henry.

R27, that's an interesting observation. HH Holmes, who is considered America's first serial killer, was a former medical student interested in anatomy.

Bronco Henry obviously was fucking Phil at some point in the late 1890s.

R48, the movie, first of all, is not even called “Dog Power.” Secondly, did you somehow miss the true meaning of that title.

The posts calling for more diversity and a more positive ending are ridiculous and quite stupid. I’m going to pretend that you’re presenting a satire of a “woke” poster and not actually serious about that.

R14 Well in this -specific- story, Mr. Smit-McPhee is protecting his drunken, greasy haired mama, Kiki Dunst.

R40 Tom isn’t believable having a classics degree from Yale.

R19 He played the banjo to psychologically torment Kiki.

Reductive to say it’s a serial killer origin story or anything like that.

"I should like to look on the governor as he drives up and gets out of his ve-hicle."

R1 "Unfortunately, very, very few people want to go into acting, so they have to choose from the small pool that's available." Isn't LA full of aspiring actors that rotate through that city daily?

The poster didn't say it was a serial killer origin story, just that it may well have been

I saw Cumberbatch on "Kelly and Ryan" recently. He was just in a hotel room, decent lighting, and all that, but I was pleasantly surprised by how good-looking he is. Compared to his peers, he could be considered a toad (I mean...Evans, Hemsworth, etc.) but if you walked into a bar and saw him standing there talking to someone, I think more people would appreciate his looks.

See his dong? My dears when he was in Frankenstein at The National in London he was naked for the first twenty minutes or so and believe me the whole audience was his gynaecologist as he writhed and contorted his body. Most impressive.

[quote]The director of this movie hates Men!

No, she doesn't. Even if she did, the percentage of male directors who are rank misogynists is huge, so who gives a fuck. Glad to see Campion back in the groove. She's brilliant but uncompromising, and hasn't had the career she should have because of it.

(And there's no need to capitalize 'men'.)

[quote] the whole audience was his gynaecologist

Benedict Cumberbatch has a VAGINA?

Benedict looked good with that facial hair. He always looked weird and creepy for me with that jaw of his. But tha kid with bulged eyes was nothing special , he has only special face ,thats all. He doesnt have to do much.

Thought it was terrible. The kid seemed like some modern day vision of a barely binary twink that used the Tardis to show up in Montana a hundred years ago. Zero, zero, sub zero chemistry between him and Cumberbatch.

Side note: Where does Kristen Dunst keep getting nonstop supplies of her perfectly packaged and labeled whiskey smack dab in the middle of prohibition? It’s like there was a Frontier Total Wine around the corner that was never shown. And I never once heard the word prohibition even mentioned or even hinted at. I mean if she had a still, or there was some reference to the “massive stockpile” they had… but whatever.

The ending required such a long link of incredibly unlikely leaps to be plausible. Eyeroll was my only reaction.

Don’t get the praise, but to each his/her own.

Kirsten. Damn auto correct. Save the Marys.

I thought the chemistry between BC and KSM was off the charts, especially in the cigarette in the barn scene.

How does the boy kill Phil with Anthrax?

R69 BC played good whe he was looking at the kid, but when they had to have some interaction it was not so good.

Benedick Humperdinck is a fug autistic weirdo, passable only as Sherlock Holmes who he plays as… a fug autistic weirdo. He looks like he has a combination of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Marfan’s. His career is a mystery.

Mud bath photos.

R70, he recovered the rawhide from a dead, clearly diseased cow near the border, as Phil had described to him earlier in the film. Then he gave it to Phil to finish the rope. Now it’s his own personal “Killin’ Rope” which he keeps tucked under his bed.

R63 That was a prosthetic stage dong, just vinyl. Calm down, Mary

SPOILER:

Will the lasso still contain anthrax, so the kid can kill again?

R74 SPOILER?: Don’t forget the *ahem* subtle setups of glove wearing by each party (serial killer in the making kid who dissects animals in his bedroom and carries his glove kit with him everywhere he goes) and *manly* Cumberbatch who would…never wear a glove! even when reaching into animal carcasses cuz he’s a MAN! (2021 hyper sanitation calling 1924 stat! Does anyone have a face mask?). Which all has to connect with the kid stumbling upon the diseased cow when he is on a horse riding training ride, with drunko Durst giving away all the cowhides to some Indians, depriving Cumberbatch of his supplies (hey! What a coinky dink! I have some rawhide right here you can use for your love lasso!)…

Would have been better played if the kid realized in the end he *accidentally* killed him, and really had fallen in love with him. Then the series of implausibilities would have been a heartbreaking tragedy instead of just *too* much to believe.

Wow, I am totally unsure what movie most of you think you watched.

Hardy would have been so much better in the role. At least he has sex appeal, something to get the audience on his side to some degree. Cumberbatch is all broading and asexual. Dunst appeared out of her depth - maybe some other scenes with her were left on the cutting room floor.

Jane Campion's worst film to date.

The whole things feels dislocated. It was filmed in a place that looks nothing like Montana, or even North America. The "magical" tunnel under the mangroves? In Montana? The safe space metaphor is silly.

Some shots it looks nothing like Montana. Montana is pretty but New Zealand has areas that look other worldly, which is why it was perfect for LotR. For a second I really thought Phil was gonna kiss the kid in the barn scene but quickly realized the movie wouldn't go there. Nor should it.

R67 The book does explain how she gets the alcohol. Because the Burbanks are very wealthy she does gain social status in town and everyone caters to her. While she would shop and put everything on account, George would usually give her $10 a trip for mad money and tips. She would go to the pharmacist and get a “prescription” that she could take to a certain known “house” where she could purchase whiskey.

R82 Thanks for that! A throwaway line/scene could have been inserted to explain all that. Maybe it too was left on the cutting room floor. I associate “1920s” immediately with prohibition (especially when drinking is key to the subject). It’d be like decades in the future doing a movie set in a hospital in 2020 and not mentioning Covid.

I thought it was slow-going (if pretty) for the first half.

But the film really rewarded sticking with it.

The son killed Benedict's character because he was making his mother's life hell. The son blamed him for driving his mother to drink.

After the death, we see his mother and her husband happy together again, letting the son know he had made the right decision.

It’s almost a throw away in the movie to a certain extent, but when Phil enters the room at the Red Mill Inn and looks at the window he notices the fire escape rope beneath and almost seems to have a visceral reaction to it and the camera lingers for a beat to long. From the book we know that Pete’s father hung himself with one of the fire escape ropes. I don’t think they ever made that explicit in the film. Possibly the character Phil knows this and finds it unnerving to see the rope. But it’s also as if he’s having a hair raising, someone walking on my grave moment of foreshadowing about how it is he comes to die. None the less Campion uses it as an allusion of what’s to come.

She made me show my schlong in a film 30 years ago.. but it was th at bitch playing the deaf lady that got an Oscar!

And that pretentious bucktoothed kid got an Oscar too. Whatever

One beer with lunch is hardly drinking.

Filmed in New Zealand and it looked like New Zealand.

The other thing that dislocates it is the lighting because light is different in different part of the world. Sometimes that can work for a film but this is clearly shot in the Southern Hemisphere.

R84 but we dont see how he was making his mother's life hell.

R80 I didn’t read those as mangroves at all, which need a seaside salt water marshy area to grow in though there are some rare landlocked groves from when the coastline retreated. In the book it’s talked about the brothers having a special clubhouse in the wild and that willows can be sprouted by taking cuttings and planting them and they grow into trees. They had put all these willow saplings in the ground around the club house and they grew to encompass it and create the space inside and the tunnel to enter and exit it.

R89 His entire presence all the time was menacing and uncomfortable from barely interacting and communicating with her when she tried to make small talk to intimidating her physically whenever he was near her and mocking her at every turn, especially musically which completely shattered her. And more then anything his mocking and humiliating her son for his effeminate behavior, lisping and effete personality cut deeper then even what he did to her, despite Peter being more able to let it roll off his back.

[quote]Thanks for that! A throwaway line/scene could have been inserted to explain all that.

There wasn't any need for a throwaway line to explain it as it was pretty simple to extrapolate from what we were given.

[quote][R84] but we dont see how he was making his mother's life hell.

Either you're trolling, retarded, or a psychopath.

The music thing really broke her. I forget what she played the piano for previously but it was clearly a passionate hobby. Him making her feel less confident and to the point of embarrassment in front of dinner guests definitely broke her. And maybe she is too gentle a person to deal with it. Dunst was wonderful and I think performances that arent show boaty should get oscar consideration. But I bet a nom is the most she gets.

R92 Simple to extrapolate indeed: Poor filmmaking.

This movie needed a gay director and a gay actor (like Tom Hardy).

R92 I am not trolling. The piano situation was laughable thing to kill someone. Myabe it was better presented in the book , but it was not shown in the movie. He was not nicest man in the whole world yes but come on. I think Campion prefered to show homosexual tones than real conflicts.

The cinematography is incredible. I’m 50 minutes in and I can already say best movie of the last couple years. Not a fan of Dunst, but she’ll do. The only reason I can forgive the casting for Cumberbatch is because he was extraordinary in “The Danish Girl.”

You all do realize this is a Jane Campion film, right?

Subtlety is her language.

R98 Well crafted subtlety would have been welcome. This was a two by four to the head.

It’s interesting, the gloves made by the Native Americans make an appearance in the novel, but Rose doesn’t have direct interaction with the father and son and them, instead she sells the skins to Jewish peddlers. Phil is hugely anti Semitic in the novel and has been known to mock the owner of the local department store Mr. Green who married a Christian woman and change his name to that from Greenberg. But of course her wearing the gloves reinforces that imagery in the movie of what separates George, Peter and her from Phil. It’s brilliant in fact to pull that out and use it that way.

The Power Of the Dog - the title comes from a passage Peter reads from the Bible, “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” He reads it at the end with a smile, the suggestion being that the verse comforts him, that what he did was deliver his mother from Phil's power as a vicious dog. But the power was really about those who can see the hidden. When Phil is talking about the dog in the mountain, some of the ranch hands he talks to can't "see" what he's talking about, but Peter sees the dog. It is from this moment that Phil starts to consider Peter a little more gently and stops making fun of him. It was like gay code, but it makes Phil decide to treat Peter differently.

And it is definitely implied in the film that Peter killed his father.

Phil is never a real person, but that's not the actor's fault. It's interesting to see how she thinks the mechanisms of American masculinity operate, like looking in a fun-house mirror. And the land looks very un-American, like when they take a Baroque opera and set it in a shopping mall or the moon. The whole thing is mannered, a couple of levels removed from reality.

I still enjoyed watching it though. She's an interesting artist.

Why did Peter kill his father again? I read the book back in October but I honestly have forgotten. I remember the father had become an unruly and embarrassing (but not in any way abusive) town drunk. Was Peter’s father also gay?

I haven’t read the book, but Phil strikes me as one of those uber-literary characters that might never have been translatable to a dramatic medium. Nonetheless, it would have been interesting to see what Tom Hardy or Joaquin Phoenix would have done with him.

R102 [quote] When Phil is talking about the dog in the mountain, some of the ranch hands he talks to can't "see" what he's talking about, but Peter sees the dog. It is from this moment that Phil starts to consider Peter a little more gently and stops making fun of him. [quote] Except that’s now how it plays in the movie. Once Phil sees Peter spy on him naked at the lake, it’s like a light switch. Bang, suddenly he’s nice and into to him (more trademark Campion subtlety). The seeing of the dog in the mountains together comes after that.

Agree that this needed a gay director and actor who could have brought all this together so much better.

Because a lttle dick goes a long way.

[quote] “Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.”

TheCinemaholic.com has a great explanation of this Bible verse in relation to the theme of the film.

[quote] The film puts more focus on the latter part of the passage, as after all, Phil assures the younger man that he will never have to be worried about him after Peter gives Phil the cowhide he needs to complete his rope. Phil never realizes that what he believes to be a gift is actually a death sentence, having been made out of the rawhide of a cow that died of anthrax.

[quote] Although Peter is safe, he knows that his mother will never be as long as Phil is alive. Rose is “my darling” in the film, and Phil and his cowhand followers represent “the power of the dog.” By killing the pack leader, Peter ensures the eradication of evil from his mother’s life. With her tormentor gone, Rose becomes sober again and can now look forward to a bright future with George.

[quote] The title can also be construed as denoting the ultimate victory of an underdog. In one of the interviews, Campion compared the struggle between Peter and Phil to the fight between David and Goliath. Peter recreates the age-old story through his triumph, where determination and intelligence always win against raw strength and cruelty.

Cumberbatch is an excellent, one of a kind theatrical craftsman. I think a lot of people find him unsatisfactory because they want him to be this dazzling star personality and all they get is an actor giving a performance. So they end up picking apart the performance to explain their disappointment with him.

I watched this last night. It's beautifully directed and shot, but the casting is so odd it doesn't really work. All of the male performances are well acted, but this is a group of actors who have so little charisma among them that it seems like a vacuum. Jesse Plemons gives the best performance in a very subtle part--a passive and weak man who sees everything but is incapable of standing up to his mean and bullying brother.

The biggest problem is actually Kristen Dunst, who has the lynchpin part. For the film to work, you'd have to care more about her, but she's just not interesting enough or charismastic enough to make you worry about her mental health or think she is worth protecting.

Benedict Cumberbatch gives a fine, and multilayered performance, but he needs to be much sexier, like Paul Newman in "Hud" for the film to work properly. You'd need to think the Kirsten Dunst character could see his charisma and appeal so that he seemed more like a real threat to her son.

The teen actor looks like an alien. His appearance is the result of a strange disease, and you keep expecting the other characters to comment on it, but they never do. It makes little sense why Phil would pick him out to groom (other than as a way of destroying the Kirsten Dunst character further) since the other ranch hands are so much more attractive. He also didn;t seem attracted to Phil, which made the central dynamic not work better. You needed to feel he was tempted by Phil's attentions to make his decision at the end of the film to mean something. He just seemed like a killer (especially when he wrung the rabbit's neck and implied he had a part in his father's death) who loved his mother.

I did really like the subtle performances of Frances Conroy and whoever played the father. You got such a sense at the end of the film they were so relieved to have the evil son dead but they were far too genteel to actually acknowledge that.

It is mesmerizing to watch! I can’t remember a movie as stunningly beautiful. I need to see this on the big screen after smoking some bud. Some scenes seem like they were shot on another planet. The whole movie is unforgettable.

Sorry -- I couldn't get through it. Too slow and boring. I feel like I spent years watching it and I maybe made it through half an hour...? I read the spoiler in the NYT and then came here to DL to see if I missed anything. Seems like I didn't.

I wasn't crazy about Brokeback either, but that was a masterpiece compared to this.

R111 - I was about to rip you to shreds until I saw how you signed your post. I’m feeling friendly today; give me an example of your perfect movie. This movie was exceptional to me. I mean top 10 of all time exceptional. Tell me yours.

I am surprised by some of the negative reactions here. The story is fundamentally quite simple—it's about one person's repression and inner turmoil bleeding out and poisoning everyone around them. What makes it interesting though is how each of the other characters (who come with their own baggage) respond to it. Cumberbatch's character is not a good man, but there is a lot of nuance in his performance and I couldn't help but feel pity and sadness for him. As is the case with most people like this, he is a sad, lonely person who really just wants to be loved, but, for a variety of reasons, cannot express it. In the end, he winds up a sick animal that has to be taken out to pasture.

I thought the acting was great in this, and Cumberbatch, who I've never had a strong opinion on, played the part really well. I love Kirsten Dunst and will watch anything she's in. This is not a glamorous role (she rarely takes those it seems), but I thought she was effective as the meek, downtrodden wife. I was surprised to read that they actually shot this in Campion's native New Zealand, as it really does resemble Montana quite a bit. Half of my extended family is from there and I am very familiar with most of the state. I would've never guessed these locations were in New Zealand. Some of the visuals (especially the lone house against the landscape) reminded me of "Days of Heaven".

Although I thought the Cumberbatch role should have been played by a gay actor, I thought it was really progressive for the director to have the alcoholic mother played by real-life alcoholic Kirsten Dunst.

R112, I already said in another thread that Cabaret is my all-time-favorite movie.

So apparently a lot of you think this movie is about being gay?

It seems like the boy is in love with his mother, from the way he acts around her

It's not about dog empowerment?

[quote] Jane Campion's worst film to date.

The Piano was painful.

R119 The Piano is a masterpiece.

^ I was so grateful that Holly Hunter was dumb in that movie. She has a hacksaw in her throat.

R109 I agree with most of what you said, except I really loved Dunst’s performance (not as good as she was in Melancholia but up there). My cousin has ankylosing spondylitis & looks totally normal, but like KSM at all.

This movie would have worked better in animation form.

I will say I was very impressed with Cumberbatch, he really did very well adding nuance to a complicated role.

I agree with the posters who thought his total switch in attitude towards "Nancy" came on too quickly, but that just a quibble.

It looked beautiful as a movie too.

Question SPOILER Was the mother aware of the plot, and gave the hides away on purpose?

No, I think she did it just to retaliate against Phil.

It was a totally, utterly, never-before-seen plot - CREEPY GAY IS A KILLER!

Bet no one saw that one coming.

I think Phil was severely damaged by (and caught up in) that weird love-hate relationship with their abuser. His mental illness was demonstrated in how he decimated everyone around him. The boy took care of him like the rabid dog that he was.

Now it all makes sense to me. In the beginning, the boy and his mother were running a boarding house. In the sequel - set many years later - they will be running The Bates Motel.

R116 Everything is about being gay.

But was Peter really gay? It's never stated explicitly (is it in the novel?), so perhaps he was just using Phil's repressed homosexuality to get close to him to kill him and save his mother.

I don’t want think he was gay. He “dissected” Phil like the rabbit and figured out what made him tick and figured out a way to destroy him.

[quote] Cumberbatch is an excellent, one of a kind theatrical craftsman. I think a lot of people find him unsatisfactory because they want him to be this dazzling star personality and all they get is an actor giving a performance. So they end up picking apart the performance to explain their disappointment with him.

So what you're saying, then, is that if people find him "unsatisfactory" in the part it's somehow [italic]their[/italic] fault entirely. Not his, and not Jane Campion's.

That's not very convincing.

A middle aged Mel Gibson would have been brilliant casting for Phil. The role needed more physical charisma mixed with repellant stench.

Lots of great insights here which I missed in my viewing of the film and really appreciate. I think when a film has this much to dissect and talk about, it proves the brilliance of the film making.

However....was anyone else bothered by George being so conveniently out of the picture and unprotective of Rose? George seemed to be presented as a very humane and caring man, not intimidated by Phil, so why wasn't he around more for Rose and Peter?

Agreed, r134: we needed a scene for why George seemed so oblivious to Rose's state.

George was an avoidant. He handled things by avoiding them. He’s like the workaholic who works too much to avoid a toxic home environment. He thought Rose would change the dynamic of the household, but she just became a victim of Phil’s rage. When that happened, he dipped out again and left her to be destroyed. Ironically the only “real man” in the story was the boy, because he had the courage to kill Goliath on his own.

I can believe what you say about George, r136, but it's really all an assumed subtext on your part as there's no evidence in the film of George avoiding anything. He was clearly presented as a strong, caring, sensitive and intelligent man who ran a very successful ranch and dearly loved his wife.

I suppose Campion could have said George was constantly out of town on business....except he wasn't.

Everyone did a fine job if you ask me. It's a pretty creepy movie, and not a great movie, but it was interesting to watch. I guess I was most impressed how quickly Dunst character fell apart and that Dunst let her self act and be filmed a such a mess. Kodi Smit-McPhee is not the fashion it boy of the year. I though Cummerbitch was fine and sexy. It was fun to watch Peter decide to play with his prey and kill him. We don't know if Peter is gay or just effeminate. I would guess he's gay. But he wasn't a fool and didn't think with his dick. He's a creep though. Creepier than Phil if you ask me. Phil isn't a monster in the movie. I didn't read the book. In this movie Phil had a true love and is now lonely and has his brother for companionship. He's smarter than EVERYONE, remember, and tortured. We don't see him being unfair to his workers. He's a bit of a tyrant and an asshole to his new sister in law but he does have her number in one sense. In another he can't accept that she will be a good companion to his brother, who is lonely as well. I'm too lazy to go back and watch but don't the brothers still sleep in the same bed? Or sometimes? And they are wealthy and in a big house.

Was it intentional that we don't really understand how wealthy and successful the brothers are until a bit into the film, at least until after George and Rose marry? And, if intentional, why would Campion do that? Or did I just miss something?

Is the white handkerchief's original ownership established in some early shot before we see Phil fondling it? I only learned on this thread whose it was.

It had the man's initials on it r140.

I watched this earlier and felt pissed off when it ended abruptly and without any climax. I understand what the climax was supposed to be but it wasn't that obvious when I was watching it. Shit cast as well.

From a narrative point of view it makes little sense the 180 Phil does in his attitude towards Peter, right after he chases him away from the river bank. Is it better explained in the book?

The connection over seeing the dog in the mountain comes later.

R14, please shut up and stop trying to pretend you’re some intellectual. You’re just parroting dated cultural criticism from the early 1980s. All human beings are mortal and vulnerable.

What a maroon.

Gave the book away after 10 pages. Couldn't be bothered with the film. The book is set in Buttfuck Montana. Cumberbatch and Smit-McPhee tripping over their tongues attempting to speak Yank wasn't a draw.

I was looking forward to watching this but I'm glad I didn't because "spoiler alert"

There is no sex scene between Cumberbatch and Smit-McPhee and one of the gays ends up dead in the end. You can say all you want about why the character ended up dead but I don't give a shit. It's 2021 and I'm sick of dead gays. Considering the track record of Hollywood on this topic I feel they own us no more dead gays for at least 25 years.

It makes sense that this story was written by a closeted self-loathing gay guy.

I’m not sure if it was the casting or the script, but I wasn’t impressed with this film. Phil is supposed to have all this power and influence but he came across as a fairly simple schoolyard bully to me. We only know he’s Harvard educated because we’re told he is - nothing suggested he was this highly intelligent, manipulative man.

Campion and Cumberbatch couldn't find a spec of empathy which I personally found a problem.

This is the second film Campion has made with a central male character and has made her worst film. Her other film in which the central character was male was her early short film Peel and the lead was a small boy.

You knew it wasn’t going to end well for Phil when Peter snapped that rabbit’s neck after so gently treating it. Foreshadowing like a ton of bricks. I enjoyed it, but it was a two for one with tropes between the effeminate Oedipal killer and a bury your gays ending. I’m ok with that as it was a reflection of the time the original work was written. I’m of the view that Harvey Finestein talked about in ‘Celluloid Closet’. Paraphrasing…’visibility at any cost, I’d rather have negative than nothing’.

Oops Fierstein….An ‘oh dear’ to myself.

[quote]From a narrative point of view it makes little sense the 180 Phil does in his attitude towards Peter, right after he chases him away from the river bank. Is it better explained in the book?

I just assumed that he was worried that Peter had the goods on him after finding his magazine stash and so he decided to change his tactics and act friendly toward the boy. When Peter recognized the "dog" in the mountains, that further changed something in their relationship and his plan altered into something sexual and deeper and real (for Phil, anyway), I think.

I'm somewhat shocked that nobody in this thread is focused on the primary fact that Peter is an absolute psychopath. Who gives a shit that he did it because he's a good boy to his mother? Lock him the fuck up and do it now!

[quote] You knew it wasn’t going to end well

No one ends well in Jane Campion Land.

Love, love, love this thread because now I'm informed and it's not necessary to watch the film.

I'm a lazy pop culture consumer.

I also read book reviews, but not the books reviewed.

Such a rich, fulfilling life!

lol, r155

Love it or hate it, I’m just thankful that there’s a film out there that even merits this level of disagreement and discussion. I’m so saddened to be living in a world where the primary cultural voice of the moment is Marvel fucking Comics, I’m hungry for anything with artistic ambition. This movie was a breath of fresh air for me; not perfect, but at least adult and uncompromising.

I mean… I read the book but I still think a lot of you are stupid with the conclusions you’re gathering.

I liked the movie a lot r158. Is the book worth reading as well?

I was a little frustrated by the book because it’s not explicitly sexual. The film isn’t either but of course it shows you.

Lol @ all the critical comments of this masterpiece. Typical DL to rip apart something so thoughtfully executed. This film will still be discussed in 50 years; you however, will be long forgotten.

R161 I'm guessing it won't even be rememberd this time next year. Just because you love it doesn't mean it's everyone's cup of char.

R154 This is not uncommon. Some people have a passion for books and adore le cinema.

Upon meeting, we would know these things about you without you telling us.

[QUOTE] Is the white handkerchief's original ownership established in some early shot before we see Phil fondling it? I only learned on this thread whose it was.

Are you joking? Do you seriously need this amount of spoon-feeding in order to get something. You sound quite dumb.

Bronco Henry is mentioned several times and it’s quite obvious that the handkerchief Phil’s masturbates with is his.

[QUOTE] I mean… I read the book but I still think a lot of you are stupid with the conclusions you’re gathering.

I always think DL as quite a few rungs above normal people, but this thread is not an example of that. Many, many stupid people.

And I can’t believe someone is trying to portray this as an old-school “kill the gays” ending.

Anyone who didn’t notice the initials “BH” on the handkerchief he was masturbating with, is an idiot.

R153 The Piano had a happy ending. Holly and Harvey finding true love. Would have been better if Hunter sunk to the bottom of the ocean with the piano but that ending would have cost the film $100 million in box office.

R157 Agreed. I didn't like the film but at least it is something original and not some generic Hollywood garbage.

This weekend, I’ve watched this, PASSING, and THE HUMANS. The other two weren’t perfect, but I appreciated watching movies for adults.

For those who were asking why Phil suddenly befriends Peter. Phil suddenly sees Rose arrive outside with husband and son, and the camera dwells a bit on it. You see that Phil notices she is looking better. She is wearing clothes, doesn't seem drunk and out of it, she seems happy and more confident. Because she is heartened by the presence and support of her son.

Well, that won't do ! Phil wants to viciously take that crutch from her. He thinks he can do it easily, being so smart. How simple ! The boy is just being taunted by the men. Surely he will jump at the opportunity of having a protector and mentor ! Notice how, once they are "friends", he tries to poison the boy's mind against his mother.

It is not a case of love redeeming the vicious bully.

What he doesn't know is that "vulnerable" Peter is not as thirsty and lonely as he is. He has a boyfriend at school. The future "professor" who calls him "doctor". I would say it is a case of a OUT gay killing a mean, bitter closeted gay.

And yet...

You hear the weirdo looking bandersnatch has been cast by so and so in the latest such and such film and you wonder why and it couldn't possibly work. And then he pulls it off. Every single time. He's an amazing actor.

[quote]The piano situation was laughable thing to kill someone. Myabe it was better presented in the book , but it was not shown in the movie. He was not nicest man in the whole world yes but come on. I think Campion prefered to show homosexual tones than real conflicts.

You need to find movies that are more accessible, better gauged to your apparent need for the very obvious.

[quote] enigmatic Peter tougher than his slim effeminacy might suggest. ‘It is a David and Goliath story,” said Campion. “Both of them are gay, actually.”

Why were Phil and George sharing a bed in that huge house?

They were side by side in their own individual twin beds in their house r173

They shared a double bed in a hotel.

The majority of the commenters in this thread are not paying attention or are very stupid. Maybe both.

Am I supposed to understand Phil and his brother are on the spectrum or something? Why is the brother so emotionally stunted? Why is Phil squandering his intelligence? Why do they even live together? This whole movie just confused me and ends with a dead gay. Just a no from me even tho BC gave his best La Cage John Wayne impersonation.

I don’t understand how this movie is so difficult to understand, specially for gay people, R169 explained perfectly, and I got every subplot at the first watch. I have seen it twice, I had to explain it to my boyfriend too.

I think it’s a great movie, Benedict is at his hottest and delivers good as expected. Kodi and Kiki deserve all kind of awards for this and I think no one is robbing Kiki her Oscar next year.

And yet... in spite of his scheming ways, having a boyfriend,and his hatred of Phil, I think Peter is still attracted and troubled by Phil.

At the end he has a satisfied smile when he sees his mother happy with her husband, but he also carress the rope Phil made for him, and that killed him. And hides it under his bed.

As for Phil, yes he discovers that he could have the connection he desperately needs with the boy when he sees the dog in the mountain. But I also think when he befriend him in order to estrange him from his mother he was lying to himself. He was already attracted to him. Only, he is so f*** ed up. From the beginning, he recognized his own artistic leanings in the boy and felt the irrepressible need to ridicule it.

Other times.

Finally, anybody got a "Amadeus" vibe during the barn scene ? I'm not talking about the smoldering repressed feeling ! But Peter, like Sallieri, is there to watch his opponent croak, while is sinister intentions are being misinterpreted.

And the cigarette ! It was homoerotic, but Peter was also giving Phil his last cigarette, literally.

Loved the film.

Ugh! Sorry for all the typos. Wish I could correct it.

[quote] Take the scene when Peter walks in his giant-brimmed cowboy hat past a line of hooting cowboys — and then walks back again. Is he being provocative? “That scene haunted me because it is so brilliant [in the novel],” said Campion. “There was a change. And Phil called him over. It’s more to do with his courage, and his cool about, OK, being called out as a ‘faggot.’ And Phil knows who he is. And the boy’s handling it and he’s walking straight back down, not around or anything else. Phil’s impressed.”.

But doesn’t the fact that Benedict shows peen count for anything?

This has some interesting background information. I didn’t realize the filming was interrupted by Covid-19, I though it only started filming after the start.

The cigarette sharing to me had vibrations of the CMBYN scene where they share a joint on the balcony just before they finally fuck. One usually thinks of the cigarette as an after sex thing, but it intriguing as a element of seduction and foreplay.

Interesting, R179.

So many layers.

This is a movie about toxic masculinity.

Duh, Sherlock ^

Even understanding it’s a movie about toxic masculinity it still sucks. It’s 2021 for krissakes.

I thought it was good enough. One of those films where the opening line foreshadows the whole thing and makes more sense at the end.

It was always going to end the way it did. After all, positive gay relationships didn't exist in the rural 1920s.

I loved seeing the vintage gay porn mags.

[quote]It’s 2021 for krissakes.

Yeah, thank god we have been able to leave toxic masculinity in the past.

Even watching the trailers I thought he was horribly miscast.

Will West Side Story be the main competition for Oscars? Such different films, hard to say which will dominate.

It is about masculinity, whether it is toxic or not.

Does anyone know who the actor is who plays the ranch hand who wears glasses and looks like the “smart one?” He almost seems like Nick Zano, but it’s not.

I'm surprised how many of you wanted to see a hot man stick-insect on boy stick-insect sex scene.

So does this mean that all men who display "toxic masculinity" are actually repressed homosexuals?

The point is, we’ve all learned (hopefully) enough about toxic masculinity by now to not need an obtuse art film about it. 10 years late.

[quote]we’ve all learned (hopefully) enough about toxic masculinity by now to not need an obtuse art film about it.

Lovely fantasy.

LMAO @ the "why didn't they cast somebody HOTTER?" and "why didn't the character pick out somebody HOTTER?" comments.

Never change, DL.

It’s rated 96% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, and deserves it. It’s a visual feast as well. The only thing that disappointed me is the lack of a gay sex scene in the pond. It would have added another layer to the relationship between the eventual murderer and victim. I can imagine Cumberbatch fucking the boy, after slathering his body with mud from the pond.

What's up with the terrible casting? I disagree that Benedict knocked it out of the park or whatever. He did his best, as usual, but he wasn't right for the part. His American accent is also not very good. He enunciates vowels way too harshly. It funny how when he's cast as a British character he reads as elegant and cool but when I'm supposed to believe he's American he looks like he has Down's Syndrome. Every casting choice made me bored. Asa Butterfield should've played the psycho.

Pedo ^

Nothing is every good enough for moi.

R196 In what world are you living in?

It clearly should have been Jason Mamoa as Phil and Elliot Page as Peter.

Phil and George were both victims of Bronco Henry.

It was George's duty to protect his wife and her son from Phil's emotional abuse, though his own years of emotional abuse at the hands of Phil probably rendered him emotionally neutered and terrified of "rocking the boat".

Not that the boy is going to forgive George for doing nothing. In fact, I think George may be the next member of the family to suffer an "accident" (and his snobbish parents should probably not spend that next Christmas at the ranch either).

And it's time to say out loud that Jesse Plemons is one of the great actors of our day.

[quote] In fact, I think George may be the next member of the family to suffer an "accident" (and his snobbish parents should probably not spend that next Christmas at the ranch either).

MARY

R205 I got that and wondered if this wasn’t more of an examination on abuse in this movie above any other issues.

A beautiful film, and most of the "flaws" were with the original story, not the film. Y'all are like someone watching Gone with the Wind saying "It'd been better if Sheman didn't invade Atlanta, and I think Rhett should have stayed with Scarlett..." (GWTW reference b/c the gays).

Visually the best film of the year (w/maybe Titane). Campion is a great auteur visually. I like that she's so odd and cool about human relationships... not what stereotypes would suggest is her strength - a woman, a gay = sentimentality? Nope, a cold and heartless universe for our Jane.

One quirk in the film I didn't quiet get... so Bronco Henry is this mythic force, an Icon now dead respected.... but it seemed like Phil's own private Idaho with BH had infected the group of cowpokes around Phil... several scenes (the cowhands all shirtless sitting on the ground with large parachute like cloth, refencing the BH silk masturbate-rag? Jumping around nekkid in the river. Whistling at goofy boy as he walked his ass in front of them? Was the Sparta-homo-cult thing in the book? Not sure how it really worked in movie. How was the Cult of Bronco Henry formed?

Joe Manganiello as Phil and Lil Nas X as Peter.

Hoping the film wins for best cinematography. Campion used a relatively young (37 or 38) female cinematographer and boy did she hit it out of the ball park.

Places where men live and work together can be intensely homoerotic.

In rural Montana in 1925, social nudity was standard among men, especially if the men were a team r209

See the numerous threads on DL is which elder gays decry towel dancing

I don't think Phil needed to be hot, but he did need to be more charismatic than Cumberbatch is.

Phil is a size queen and finally submitted to his hunger for Peter's huge hanging pale slab of tubesteak.

R166 Some say she did in fact drown with the piano and the final scenes are an epilogue or dream sequence.

R157 absolutely. Last night I finally watched Black Widow just for something different and didn’t even finish it. Total waste of time. What junk. About as bad as the Wonder Woman sequel. This movie wasn’t perfect, but compared to the bland Disneyfied dreck—and every other movie now with a 15 year old girl as a protagonist. This at least had some teeth to it—and wasn’t trying to appeal to every demographic in a single movie.

Jesus, can there be a bigger cunt than R144?

I kept waiting for a black character to be included, but since that didn’t happen, I didn’t finish the movie because I didn’t see myself in the film. For that reason I really couldn’t relate to any of the characters and what was going on.

We need a prequel with Sean Hayes as Bronco Henry and Timotheé as Young Phil.

R219 Would you anti-woke addicts give it a rest? You are taking all the air out of the internets with your tiresome, repetitive bunk.

There was a black cowboy in the naked river scene... but who cares.

R211, really? I thought that the movie looked weirdly CGI. Every wide shot of the landscape looked like it was from Skyrim.

They should have had a flashback scene of Bronco Billy played by Ken Watanabe, Wesley Snipes or Javier Bardem. Some inclusivity would have been nice.

Laverne Cox should be Bronco The MAP

[quote]Jesus, can there be a bigger cunt than [R144]?

For your consideration...

[quote]They should have had a flashback scene of Bronco Billy played by Ken Watanabe,

Sure, because there were a ton of Japanese ranch hand cowboys living in 1920s Montana.

Bronco Billy, er, Henry

R219 I totally hear you.

As a MTFTMTT trans non-binary POC vegan libertarian anarchist, I just couldn't enter the story

If the beef wasn't enough, the shirtless cowcismen stung me like the hegemonic white cismen's genocide of Native Americans.

R228 Welcome to WalMart....

Two hours of a guy being an obnoxious cruel douche and a bunch of animal cruelty.

Lesbian ^

Was there no shampoo in that house??

I’m just so happy that such an incredible masterpiece of a film is on a huge platform like Netflix, because if any of my friends or acquaintances say they “can’t get into it,” or didn’t like it, I immediately know what kind of idiot they are. I don’t have room in my life for stupid, unimaginative people.

R231 = dummy

If they wanted somebody who could convincingly project petty cruelty and toxic masculinity, why didn't they cast Ellen Degeneres?

At first you wonder why Campion cast Cumberbatch when she could have cast someone who would have been more naturally masculine, angry, and aggressive. Why cast Cumberbatch when he'd have to give a studied performance, and that hyper- masculine, hyper anger-aggressiveness wouldn't be a part of the actor's true, innate core. It would be an artifice.

And then you go, "Oh."

How dare they let New Zealand take the place of Montana as the backdrop to the story? Montana has been kiwi-washed!

Bronco Billy and friend.

There was a distinct lack of dirt and plains in the film, but I only thought about it afterward.

R218, try The WIdow Sondheim thread.

[quote] I kept waiting for a black character to be included, but since that didn’t happen, I didn’t finish the movie because I didn’t see myself in the film. For that reason I really couldn’t relate to any of the characters and what was going on.

I kept waiting for a Icelandic character to be included, but since that didn’t happen, I didn’t finish the movie because I didn’t see myself in the film. For that reason I feel really insulted.

There was one black cowboy.

Ever since Teddy was killed in Cruising, I have hated every movie where the decent gay is killed in the end. If heteros killed really bad people as much as good gays, Joan Crawford would have been murdered in most of her films. Thanks for all the heads-up.

Pass

There was couple of black cowboys. How realistic is that? Would they have black cowboys in 1920s, working and living with the whites?

[quote] As a MTFTMTT trans non-binary POC vegan libertarian anarchist, I just couldn't enter the story

I'm a self-hating, upper-middle class, Virtue-Signaller and I couldn't enter the story either.

R244, there definitely were black cowboys in the old West. In Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, written in the 1930s, one of the ranch hands is black. He doesn’t socialize with most of the white ranch hands, however.

Black Cowboys were kept around when the ranch owner needed some BBC action. Now who has the real power? The black top fucking his boss! I hope the black ones were compensated fairly.

One in four cowboys were Black, popular culture underrepresents them. Just like going to sea and whaling had a large number of Blacks, it was more about if they could do a very hard and dangerous job well, then issues related to the color of the skin. Blacks usually had more freedom and autonomy out at sea, or on the frontier and gravitated there.

[quote] One in four cowboys were Black

Links, please.

R249 - see R248 above

R97 "The only reason I can forgive the casting for Cumberbatch is because he was extraordinary in “The Danish Girl.” "

He was in The Danish Girl?

R95 gay actor (like Tom Hardy). Yes, Tom Hardy, a gay actor with a wife, an ex wife and three kids.

R251 - He WAS the Danish Girl (main character)

Many cowboys and scouts were trans. Trans cowboys of color mapped the Santa Fe Trail and also the route for the Trans Continental Railway. That's how it got its name!

Blacks were rare in the old West.

R253 That was Eddie Redmayne, my man

Racist BS making every thread on DL the same boring Dead End.

[quote] Blacks were rare in the old West.

Blacks were less rare in West Africa.

Would this be considered Wild West? And I see it is labeled western on Wikipedia. Isn't a little too modern to be a western? It is set in 1925. Just 8 years before the formation of Nazi Germany and 14 years before WWII

[quote] Would this be considered Wild West?

This film is Bourgeois West. But I'm still insulted.

I hate DL sometimes

[quote] So Who's Watching "Power of the Dog"?

I want the "Power of the Dong"!

No one mentioned the old mother giving Rose a handful of gold rings at Phil's funeral. The father agreed to visit at Christmas. Obviously, Phil was a troubling presence in that family. Phil coming in to dinner, hostile and grimy, was a big fuck you all. George had been left as caretaker in a sense. He calmly endured Phil, careful not to set him off. Seems that Phil was a very bright young man, George was proud of that fact. What was the source of Phil's animus? Was it mad grief over his hero/lover, and an attempt to live in his image? Was it a result of being dominated and shaped by him, rejecting all that BH wasn't, needing to hide who he was? Whatever, Phil seemed half mad at times, and his hatred for Rose (women), and his disdain for women (mother, servants) was vicious. Remember that early scene of him abusing a horse, calling it a whore, etc.

Peter was triumphant. He accomplished what no one else was able to. He handled Phil, put him down like a mad dog, using his intellect and psychological acumen to best a brute.

R259, the film is set in the past, almost a hundred years ago, and it uses genre conventions, such as spectacular scenery that seems to dwarf the human characters, and the theme of barbarism vs. civilization.

R263 yeah, he hates women so he must die!

Jane Campion is Misandrist. It is her ticket to Hollywood wealth.

Yes, I didn’t understand the rings handoff at the funeral. What did that represent?

R263

I'd forgotten about the rings. Was that to mean anything besides acceptance (of Rose) by the parents?

R263 disdain for women (mother, servants? I don't remember any disdain for his mother or the servants.

[quote]Yes, I didn’t understand the rings handoff at the funeral. What did that represent?

It was a way of reassuring Rose that, after the mourning period, she would be getting Phil's caftans also.

R233 Get the fuck over yourself. Good lord.

Not a single mention yet of Frances Conroy as Ma??

Didn't we all adore her on 6 Feet Under?

And Keith Carradine as the Governor of Montana?

Didn't we all adore him in Nashville?

What a luxury to hire such wonderful actors and barely give them any lines to speak.

And SJP as the abused horse.

hardeeharhar R273

R272 I didn't even recognise her but what a good choice die to her resemblance to the boys.

The parents were Boston socialites who bought a ranch in Montana when the boys were young. They handed the boys over to Bronco Henry so he could teach them to be real cowboys. Unfortunately I suspect BH was a pedo and Phil became his favorite. The parents moved out because they couldn't live with Phil.

Bronco Henry was clearly a top. So Phil was a bottom for BH, but likely was vers since I really can’t see Peter topping him.

So... Phil, the Benedict Cumberbatch character, is a mean, spiteful, sharp-tongued gay man who is overeducated for his station and who never has sex but instead masturbates over photos of muscle men. He has bad personal hygiene, but loves to mock other people for being fat, too effeminate, or for being female. He is supercritical of other people's musical performances, and is exceptionally controlling.

Basically, it's a movie about a Datalounger except transposed to 1920s Montana.

When Kirsten Dunst arrived at the ranch he said have said loudly to the other ranch hands, "EWWW! STINKFISH!" And then when her son stepped out of the car he should have said eagerly, "Verificatia of sizemeat?"

Well, does he? Shall we ask Nicholas?

Nicholas is so fuckable.

No, as soon as her son spoke, he would cry "Mary!"

I watched it last night , meh ... ( a;ways wear gloves when castrating bulls to avaoid anhrax )

None of this movie made sense to me. It was awful. The tension between the the brothers made me initially think they weren’t actually brothers but were lovers. Why did Phil hate Kirsten Dunst so much?Agree that the twink seemed straight out of this decade; the metaphors were heavy-handed, the Indians-with-a-heart-of-gold was such a trope; the naked cowboys frolicking together was a fucking BS fantasy. Also, the twink obtained the anthrax hide BEFORE his mother sold Phil’s hides - how did he know he’d have the opportunity to offer it to Phil?it’s so obvious this movie was made my non-Americans and made no attempt to be historically accurate.

Did Benedict actually castrate that bull? It seemed so.

[quote] the Indians-with-a-heart-of-gold was such a trope

They are The Magic Negro.

[quote] The tension between the the brothers made me initially think they weren’t actually brothers but were lovers.

That was intentional.

[quote]Why did Phil hate Kirsten Dunst so much?

Because she stole his brother from him, and because (as you said) Phil treated his brother George like his lover rather than just as a brother.

[quote]Also, the twink obtained the anthrax hide BEFORE his mother sold Phil’s hides - how did he know he’d have the opportunity to offer it to Phil?

He didn't know for certain.

He might have hoped he could offer it to Phil and Phil would have taken it and used it in the lariat as a symbol of Peter's love for him, so he could use Peter's strip of leather to "bind" them together--but then opportunity (i.e. Rose's giving the other cowhides to the Indians) made it certain Phil would use it.

Did anyone else notice that Peter early on called his mother by her first name Rose?

Were we supposed to be initially confused by his relationship to her?

No, it was a set-up for Kirsten to belt out "Rose's Turn" over the closing credits but the idea got dropped.

[quote] Obviously, Phil was a troubling presence in that family.

Yeah. But the psycho murdering kid will be a real asset. Until he's not...

R287, Peter couldn't have known she would sell the hides, but he had cut his hide into strips so it was immediately useable, and there was only that one night left to complete the rope. This was fully premeditated: I'm quite sure he wasn't going to let the existence of the other hides get in his way, even if he had to seduce Phil to persuade him.

Didn't it turn on Phil having a cut hand? How did Peter manage to cut up and skin that beast without great risk to himself?

He had gloves. Seems to be a fetish in his family.

Phil was too macho to wear gloves.

Why did Phil tell George and the old housekeeper that he was going to burn the hides and not mention the fact that he was going to use them to make a rope? Was it some miscommunication?

R291 Peter was wearing rubber medical gloves. It wouldn’t surprised me if part of the reason the whole story is set in 1925 instead of earlier is that the knowledge about anthrax and transmission and that using gloves would protect them makes the story justifiable.

Why were surgical gloves not used earlier?

It was an absolutely brilliant film. A triumph on multiple levels. Hurrah for Campion.

This shit was a mess.

[quote] Phil, ... who never has sex

No idea where you got that notion. It seems obvious that Bronco Henry fucked the bejesus out of him.

And did you see the way he lovingly caressed and sat on BH's saddle? And how he instructed Peter on riding on that saddle? Something along the lines of "This is the only training you need to ride".

R283 it’s so obvious this movie was made by non-Americans and made no attempt to be historically accurate.

That's funny since Americans are the ones that make the most unrealistic movies.

R184 Made by a toxic woke feminist with very little real world experience and probably homophobic judging by her lack of empathy.

R300 = tard

[quote]probably homophobic judging by her lack of empathy

Gentle r300 - this thread is about the movie Power of the Dog.

R300 = fucktard

R296 R297 How about a brilliant mess? It's interesting to see how she thinks homoeroticism and masculinity work from the outside.

if that lousy skinny cunt will win over incredible Ciaran Hinds, I am gonna do something about that

R305 Kodi Smit-McPhee was actually the only good thing about this horrible film.

R305 And? we have to give him an oscar then?

R307 No we don't. But we don't select the Oscar winners, unless you are an Academy member.

Anyway, I don't think anything about this film is 'Oscar worthy' but the same can be said on many films they have nominated and awarded. Nobody really cares and aside from a few hardcore fans nobody even remembers.

[Quote] But doesn’t the fact that Benedict shows peen count for anything?

He does? Show, you tease.

[quote]Kodi Smit-McPhee was actually the only good thing about this horrible film.

Hah! You'll regret saying that when I'm nominated for Best Supporting Equus!

Can the Anthrax rope still harm people if they touch it without gloves? Even if they don’t have open wounds? At the end, Peter puts the rope under his bed, and he’s wearing gloves, but what if someone else touched it?

For instance, the maid moved it to clean under her bed, then rubbed her eyes or maybe licked her fingers later on, could she contract it? Seems like a very dangerous thing to have lying around.

I can totally buy the idea that peter is a budding psychopath/serial killer.

R308 Hinds is just better, much better.

It could have had a better title.

R311 exactly, a twink psychopath. A pedo, his victims and a young psychopath. Way to make the gays look good. Oooh but there were so many layers to this film though.

...Ooooookay. I didn’t think the film made gays look bad.

Decent movie. Kodi Smith-McPhee was great. The barn scene at the end was fantastic. He played Phil like a banjo (wink). I liked how Peter didn’t let any of the cowboys’ rude comments bother him. He was fine with who he was. Phil laughed at him when he told him his dad was afraid he was ‘too strong’, but he was strong. (Obviously not physically, that kid is the definition of beanpole).

Cumberbatch was fine, though I didn’t love his accent. Nice ass and body. I appreciate his willingness to show it off. Jesse Plemmons was almost a nonentity here. I like him as an actor, but he wasn’t very memorable. Which is fine.

This could be the winner of Best Picture. I don’t think it should be, but it might win. What other film could top it? King Richard or Belfast are the two I can think of.

I absolutely absolutely loved it. It is film art with a compelling story and stunning cinematography. It reminded me of 12 Years a Slave - another compelling story wrapped up in artful direction and breathtaking cinematography.

I watched it yesterday, was in awe, and came to this thread for DL dissection.

Unlike other commenters, my interpretation was the autistic kid (maybe DL’s fav diagnosis) did what he had to do, just as he did with the bunny.

No revenge or sociopathy involved but just medically clinical for the survival of his mom, her new husband, the ranch, and for Phil’s sociopathic but wounded soul.

The actors were perfectly cast in their roles. Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons deserve long-earned awards.

I will watch it again today.

R316 His mom is an alcoholic. She will start drink again

She won’t . Maybe she’ll become a florist again, or at least be allowed to enjoy her hobbies without asshole Phil around.

Kristen and Jesse’s performances are so subtle, I can see why those looking at the surface are dismissing them, but in reality they are doing some very complex and amazing work that definitely should be acknowledged. And Jane is a director who can pull good performances out of OK actors and phenomenal performances out of great actors, which is what is happening here.

R318 How do you know? If assholes make people drink, 3/4 of the whole worlds would have been drunk

You do realize that’s a fiction movie, and the story stops with Peter turning away from the window r320?

This will sweep the Academy Awards. Best Picture, Best Lead actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Screenplay, Best Set Design. It’s a lock.

What other thing can Kiki do to entertain herself in that ranch? No internet, no tv, no close neighbors, only the help and straight cowboys. I’d be wasted as fuck all day if I were her.

FAG ^

[quote] I’d be wasted as fuck all day if I were her.

And I'm sure you are r323.

Change Best Supporting Actor to Actress r322 and I would agree with you.

I also feel the Academy has of late split the vote between Best Picture and Best Director between frontrunners, so to that end I can see Campion getting Director while WSS nabs Best Picture, or vice versa with Spielberg taking Best Director home.

Any guesses how old R301 and R303 are? One of our more intellectual members. Rocket scientist, no doubt.

Ancient senile fucktard ^

Funny to see Campion and Spielberg potentially neck in neck again. Like Bening every time she is the frontrunner and Swank comes back to form. Good time to let Campion win this year.

Totally agree R319. When I see Kirsten and Jesse’s names appear I instantly click. They are amazing actors.

Everything about this movie was dreamy and relatable using our own interpretations.

The actors, director and screenwriter Jane Campion, cinematographer, producers, and score all deserve awards.

Not only a Rocket Scientist but a cunt too. Charmed.

This movie came off pretentious to me. I loved Angel At My Table. It took a while for me to get over BC's bad American accent. Also think it's not his best performance. I think Jesse, Kirsten and KSM were all very good. Cinematography was great as usual with Campion's films, though not as beautiful as AAMT. The music reminded me of There Will Be Blood, which makes sense since it's Jonny Greenwood who did both.

R332 Ha. Yeah, the music in Psycho reminded me of the music in North by Northwest!

I think Greenwood is excellent. From Radiohead to becoming a first rate film music composer. Same career arc as Danny Elfman or even Mark Isham.

^^ and I meant to say that everyone is talking about the beautiful cinematography, but his music was also core to the film's atmosphere and success.

Are all of you Oscar predicters forgetting Spielberg's WEST SIDE STORY? The original film won 10 Oscars and history will repeat itself.

R323 How are straight cowboys a bad thing? Would she be more entertained if the cowboys were gay?

The kid seemed more being in love with his mom than gay.

Is Kirsten's character supposed to be in her early teen years when she gave birth?

R337 I agree. There was a moment when the mom was drunk in bed and pulling him toward her and he made a comment like not now that gave me the impression that there was a possible incest thing going on as well.

I also thought they had a bizarre relationship for mother and son.

Nothing incestual there. Many alcoholic mothers try and hug their kids or play with them to make themselves feel better.

R341 Except he was the weird one in that relationship, not her.

Who’s the dog whisperer on this thread who keeps offering explanations on the plot? What good is a movie that needs Cliff notes?

[quote] Who’s the dog whisperer

Who’s the whiner?

I talked to two people who saw the movie. Neither got the point that Peter killed Phil. It went right over their heads.

You need friends with higher heads r345.

Me too r345. I thought it was some weird art house movie with no point. But then I came here and went back and watched the last 15 minutes. Totally missed it.

Glad to know I’m not alone.

R278 wins this thread.

With the rings I think they would have gone to Phil’s wife had Phil eventually married. Either that or the old lady hadn’t wanted to add fuel to Phil’s view of Rose as a gold digger.

And what’s up with the “old lady” and “old gent” that’s almost as bad as saying Rose instead of Mom.

When Phil first showed Peter the partial rope I thought it seemed somewhat threatening, like he was going to hang Peter. It was especially creepy given how Peter’s father died whether it was suicide or homicide.

Dogs are unclean animals in the Old Testament, so it can work as a stand-in for a diseased animal like the anthrax poisoned cow. But it was commonly used a slang for (dirty) gentiles and that is probably the meaning in the Psalm. Was Peter’s father Jewish? Is that part of the book? And the other slag use of dog in the Bible is for a male prostitute so there’s that.

Where in the Bible, pray tell, r348, is a male prostitute referred to as a dog?

R349 You're reading the wrong translation.

I think the use of "old lady" and "old gent" is to distance them from being active parents. They aren't even mom and dad, just these nebulous characters. Seems like they let Bronco Henry raise them, with all that entails, and there's also the reference to the old lady bringing in women "as soon as they could get hard-ons" or whatever. They also moved away years ago to live in a hotel, and their children are stuck in time, until the change that happens with George - sleeping in single beds in the same room, etc. Phil is frozen in time, at about 15 years old.

I frankly found it a bit confusing at first who the characters were when the parents were introduced at the same time as the Governor and his wife. I got it eventually, of course, but so much information in the film seemed like willful confusion.

Here you go R348.

But if Phil’s an anti-Semite in the book, I am going to go with (dirty) gentile.

So will the porn version be called The Power Of The Rent Boy?

[QUOTE] I think the use of "old lady" and "old gent" is to distance them from being active parents. They aren't even mom and dad, just these nebulous characters.

This is exactly how they’re referred to in the book (the brothers themselves call them that). Similar to the maid they hire, these characters really are just nebulous set pieces mostly viewed through the eyes of the other characters. Frances Contoy is just spot-on casting.

The book is pretty great and fills in some of the details that people have postulated here.

Also, I will say that I was shocked when reading the book (which I read before I saw the movie) at the ending. It was either telegraphed in the text and I just missed it completely or something. I feel like the movie actually hints at it in a stronger way (assisted, of course, by the visual medium).

I’ve already watched it twice. On the second viewing, I could relax a little and just take in more of the nuanced acting of Dunst and Plemmons, the score, cinematography, etc. I was too tense the first time to appreciate everything.

It’s a masterpiece.

The book, Power of the Dog, was published in 1967. Jane Campion said in an interview that other people were trying to bring it to the big screen before her version.

Paul Newman and Gerard Depardieu were two people who wanted to plan Phil Burbank at some point in prior development projects.

[quote]So will the porn version be called The Power Of The Rent Boy?

No - it will be The Power Of My Raw Hide.

[quote]So will the porn version be called The Power Of The Rent Boy?

No - it will be The Power Of My Raw Hide.

[quote]They also moved away years ago to live in a hotel, and their children are stuck in time, until the change that happens with George - sleeping in single beds in the same room, etc. Phil is frozen in time, at about 15 years old.

Remember Phil has been away to college, yet still managed to slot himself back into that old freezeframe.

I think Phil is trying to become Bronco Henry.

R351 Now how tf you gather that Bronco Billy raised them? Are you the one who said he ‘abused’ George, too? Bronco Billy was a saucy ranch hand that got into Phil’s eager pants but that’s all that’s said about him. Or that he’s a good cowboy. You’re making things up. Read the book if you want to fill in minor details but the ones you’ve come up with aren’t even in the book, let alone the movie.

Having read the book is one thing but to truly get the nuance of the story one should have dined and smoked and drank regularly with the author.

How old is Phil supposed to be? If we assume he's in his mid 30s-early 40s that would make him well underage when he slept with BH. We see on the plaque in the barn that BH died in 1904. So Phil would have been 14-18.

Also, Bronco Henry would have been in his 50s.

The parents do not come to the governor’s dinner at the house in the book, but I think Jane did it to pull them into the story visually and with a scene rather then try to just show them isolated in the Salt Lake City hotel like the book could mention as exposition. As for Phil’s cadence and speech and calling the parents old gent and old lady, I think some of this comes from his time back East at Harvard and picking up the Mid Atlantic affection and pretension that goes with it. I see it as a way that he mocks the parents and proves his superiority to his brother. Phil has an interesting tension between being both brilliant and worldly and homespun and down home. He can flip flop between them in any way that is needed to align himself with or antagonize others as he sees fit.

R365 geez nothing gets by you, does it. Yes teen Phil was riding the local trade daddy dick before and after he went to Harvard. As a clever and hot to trot rich boy does.

Yale, not Harvard. Classics degree.

Oscar winner Jane Campion’s first feature film as director in 12 years, The Power of the Dog, had plenty to wag its tail about in its 5-day debut on Netflix. Samba TV said Monday that the feature take of Thomas Savage’s 1967 Western novel drew in 1.2 million U.S. households over Wednesday to Sunday.

That’s a great start for what is essentially a two-hour-and-six-minute art house title, higher than HBO Max’s first weekend of King Richard by 70% (707,000 U.S. Samba measured households); ahead 36% and 84%, respectively, from Netflix’s Ted Melfi dramedy Starling (883K U.S. households) and Rebecca Hall’s Passing (653K U.S. households); and even higher than the first weekend of HBO Max’s Sopranos prequel feature The Many Saints of Newark, which drew 1M stateside homes in its first three days.

[quote]707,000 U.S. Samba measured households

Since when does my cat measure households?

I'm going to echo many others here. This movie is a masterpiece, the greatest western since Unforgiven.

God there are so many idiots out here. I love that a real film is on Netflix. It exposes the morons who “don’t get it.” People are so stupid these days, if it’s not a shoot ‘em up movie about thugs who “drift” in cars, they can’t understand it.

It's a very good movie, and Kodi Smit-McPhee and Jesse Plemons are phenomenal in it. Cumberbatch and Dunst are quite good.

The movie would have been better with a couple of additional scenes: Does one bad dinner really push Rose into alcoholism, or does Phil do other things to torment her? Her breakdown happens very fast. How is the Plemons character reacting to his brother's treatment of his wife early on? Why doesn't he intervene earlier? Does he not spot her drinking until the very end? These scenes appear to be missing from part IV.

At what moment does Phil decide to seduce Rose's son away from her? That scene is missing from part V,

We get Peter's complete emotional arc--his initial hurt at Phil's treatment at the hotel dinner, his growing emotional strength that summer on the farm, his realization that Phil will hound his mother to death if something isn't done, his final decision to kill Phil (when Phil freaks out in the barn over the missing hides), and his ruthless execution of his plan during that final night in the barn. However, the other characters are less well-developed.

This movie could have used an additional 10-15 minutes to fill in the blanks, and it would have been a true masterpiece.

We needed at least 30 more minutes of Peter doing his hula hoop thing.

I needed to see Peter with his young school lover or beating his meat watching the cowboys doing something sexy. But, alas, maybe Peter isn't even gay!

r374, most of the perceptive questions you asked above were all posed upthread. But clearly, at least to me, Jane Campion wanted the viewer to fill in those blanks. It was certainly not ignorance or laziness on her part.

Jane Campion, the director, said that Phil and Peter where both gay r376.

See the link in r172.

You want to read the thread before you bray out your ignorance.

I don't find Campion ignorant or lazy, R377, and I don't expect her to fill in every blank. For instance, I didn't need to see any more of Rose and George's courtship than I did. I didn't need flashbacks of Phil and Bronco Henry. But the blanks I'm pointing out are major gaps in the narrative in terms of motivation and character development. None of them would have required long or expensive sequences to fill in. That's why I call this a very good but not great film.

It's also where Dunst drops the ball a bit. She's good but not great and an actor with more resources like Emma Stone would've gone far beyond "unhappy".

R380 You're kidding, right?

Also Emma Stone is way too young to play that kid's mom.

I though her fall was too rapid and she was such a fucking mess, and not alone. Nobody staged any intervention - though I suppose only her son had equal power, as she was the owner's wife. The servants said and did nothing about it. Not their place. But they offered no warmth.

Giving Dunst and Plemons at least one scene where they discuss Phil and how it's affecting her (probably after the failed dinner) would have helped explain both George's passiveness and Rose's extreme fragility. Giving Cumberbatch one scene where you see him decide to destroy Rose through her greatest pride and support, Peter, would have anchored Part V. I'd have put it right after the skinny-dipping scene at the end of part IV. Really, two additional scenes would have given the viewers everything they need.

[quote] That's funny since Americans are the ones that make the most unrealistic movies.

That's so true. There's no way we can match the gritty realism of Bollywood!

Originally Elisabeth Moss was cast as Rose, but she had to drop out, and Dunst took her place. I think Moss would have been better.

I think Bronco Henry filled in all the holes in the story.

[quote] [R365] geez nothing gets by you, does it. Yes teen Phil was riding the local trade daddy dick before and after he went to Harvard.

Apparently the fact he went to Yale and not Harvard got by [italic]you.[/italic]

Moss would have been better--she's a very subtle actress and would have suited this very subtle story.

I agree with those who think Bronco Henry molested both boys, which is why George doesn't want to drink to him in that early scene. The other possibility is that Bronco Henry was only fucking Phil, but George knows about the relationship and understands how much it devastated his brother. That's why he puts up with so much from Phil.

Plemons definitely needed another scene or two--he's a great actor but he didn't get nearly enough screentime to fully flesh out his character.

I loved Dunst in this and think Campion is an excellent director, but I do feel that Dunst grasping at that drink at the end of the dinner scene was a tad too neat in telegraphing what was too come. If there had been a hint that she had developed a drinking problem when her previous husband had died perhaps, it might have felt less melodramatic, or at least more motivated. But as it was, it just felt a bit contrived. I honestly would have bought a casual sip, and then in the next scene seen her with a full blown drinking problem.

Odd how in group scenes, my eye would go straight to Jesse Plemmons every time. Dunst, to my surprise, often seemed to disappear.

R391 There was a hint about her relationship with alcohol, she was upset about people drinking “so soon” at her restaurant at the beginning of the film. It made pretty clear than not only her ex husband had problems with alcohol.

Really, it was a beautiful and simple movie that didn’t need to be less subtle that it was. I think a lot of you are just used to Marver-type movies where the bad guy is a supervillain and the good guy is a superhero, because otherwise I can’t comprehend why most of you missed the majority of the hints.

I think it’s reflective of many film audience members who expect to be spoon fed every detail, every dot connected, etc. There’s little room for nuance, subtlety, or for the viewer to do any critical thinking. Everything has to be over simplified or over explained —otherwise it’s considered a subpar film by the “I just don’t get it” crowd—the people who are also probably watching it while they are on their phone at the same time.

R394 I totally agree. But I expected more from gay people, are we really that basic?

It's a movie about a psychopath who murders an abusive sociopath.

Ingmar Bergman it's not.

I agree. It's not a particularly complex film--it just doesn't over-explain things and connect all the dots in an obvious way, which is what the casual moviegoer has come to expect. Even if they did, the same people don't have the attention span and would deem it "boring". I think many here criticizing the film would have appreciated a Waltons-esque narration to fill in the blanks for them.

What the low brow eldergays wanted was Phil to tenderly take Peter's cherry while helping Peter become a man who can survive the rigors of the brutish rural culture.

[quote] Really, two additional scenes would have given the viewers everything they need.

And yet many of us understood the story quite well without your "additional scenes". This viewer was given everything he needed without having my hand held.

How on earth did some of you manage the jump cuts of the French New Wave?

The way some of you queens are clutching your pearls over very reasonable critiques of the movie is pathetic. It's fine if you want to think it a flawless masterpiece, but the fact that some of us DON'T feel that way doesn't mean we're mouthbreathing fools.

[quote] Odd how in group scenes, my eye would go straight to Jesse Plemmons every time. Dunst, to my surprise, often seemed to disappear.

Maybe this means you're a chubby chaser.

R400, imagine some of them watching Last Year at Marienbad!

If you got everything you needed, answer these questions:

1) WHY was George so passive in the face of his brother's cruelty towards Rose? 2) WHY did George not notice Rose was leaving empty liquor bottles all over the house and spending most of the day bombed out of her mind? 3) WHY was Rose emotionally devastated to the point of alcoholism because her bitchy brother-in-law made fun of her piano playing? 4) WHEN did Phil decide he'd rather fuck Peter than destroy him?

Please, use your elevated insights to explain when, exactly, Campion gave us the answers to these vital questions.

[QUOTE] I do feel that Dunst grasping at that drink at the end of the dinner scene was a tad too neat in telegraphing what was too come.

Well, that’s exactly what happens in the book so take it up with the author (who is deceased). Rose becomes a drunk quite quickly in it.

The “I need this scene and I need that scene” people are always going to be there. The Spoon-feed-Me Gallery.

But I think this movie borders on masterpiece and is one of the best of the year by far. Jane Campion should be a strong pick for Best Director.

I love the Elisabeth Miss casting for Rose. She would have been fantastic. I did like Dunst though.

It's not spoonfeeding to ask for essential character motivations to be filled in. The fact that other people can see these issues and you can't suggests you're the one who lacks critical thinking skills.

I liked it. I liked all the performances. I started hating Phil when he played the Radetsky March on banjo so much better than Rose played it on piano, and from that point on, I just wanted the movie to be over.

And eventually it was.

The next morning, I watched Andrew Garfield in Tick, Tick, Boom. That's the film I want to take all the awards, especially best actor. He was terrific. I don't know why the media made such a big deal out of his doing his own singing. He was just lovely, every single moment. I also enjoyed the presence of Ben Levi Ross, whom you may remember if you saw the road show of Dear Evan Hansen.

I'm surely going to see it at least once more, and it may become one of those movies I see lots of times, like All That Jazz.

I don't want to watch the sad tale of men in Montana again, however.

R404 Is not that I don’t have the answers, it’s just that I don’t have the interest to explain it to you.

Bronco Henry would never have been in Buck!

[QUOTE] 4) WHEN did Phil decide he'd rather fuck Peter than destroy him?

Did you miss the scene where Peter saw the dog in the mountains? That’s where things changed for Phil.

It’s like some of you people didn’t even watch the movie. Or maybe you just weren’t paying attention.

I’d love to hear what you think of Henry James.

[quote]1) WHY was George so passive in the face of his brother's cruelty towards Rose?

George was an extremely passive man because he had been bullied so much his entire life by his brother. His brother always called him "Fatso" and George never objected. George was hoping Rose would make his life on the ranch better, but Phil was determined not to let that happen.

[quote]2) WHY did George not notice Rose was leaving empty liquor bottles all over the house and spending most of the day bombed out of her mind?

He almost certainly did notice at some level, but because of his extreme passivity he chose not to address it and just ignored it, hoping the situation would change. Many people are like that--they're too scared to confront the actual problem. (Look at the thousands of abused spouses in the US who stay with their abusive partners.) Peter was clearly too afraid of Phil to confront him, and so like a coward chose to ignore Phil's bullying of Rose and the effect it has on her.

[quote]3) WHY was Rose emotionally devastated to the point of alcoholism because her bitchy brother-in-law made fun of her piano playing?

Obviously it was more than just her piano playing he was mocking, but they only had a limited amount of time to just us their relationship in every detail. Phil was constantly ridiculing her and her son, and making her feel powerless and unworthy, and unable to escape from him.

[quote] 4) WHEN did Phil decide he'd rather fuck Peter than destroy him?

It seemed to happen slowly. The movie isn't particularly clear whether he grooms Peter to destroy Rose or because he genuinely is attracted to Peter (or both). But it's clear by the time Peter points out the dog shadow on the mountain Phil has begun to see Peter as special and worth fucking.

Thanks R411 now you made R404 look like the asshole he is.

r379, again let me reiterate, Campion is a very intelligent and experienced director and if you found there were scenes missing, it was entirely part of her intention, whether you think it makes for a better or worse film. She wants you to fill in the blanks with your imagination, even if you don't agree with everyone else watching her film.

R411, regarding (1), it's highly likely Bronco Henry abused George emotionally and that Phil is copying him, since Phil revered Bronco so much, and it's quite possible Bronco also sexually abused George and Phil bullies him because he's jealous. They had been abandoned to Bronco by their parents (in much the same way Rose abandons Peter to Phil when he comes home - a point we haven't discussed). In either case George would have adopted passivity as a way to survive.

Not everything can be easily explained or neatly portioned into “character arcs”. That’s not true to life at all.

In the book, there is a reference to Phil watching Bronco Henry get stomped to death by an animal when he was 20. Better believe Bronco Henry was tapping his ass for years prior. I found Phil even worse when reading the book. He is an anti semite and racist, hating blacks and natives. There is much more detail about his campaign of terror against Rose.

His attitude did turn when Peter saw the dog image. He did not want to merely mentor him, he wanted to recreate the connection he had with BH. the comments posters made about Peter being a budding serial killer may be onto something. The book ends with him wondering if he could cut the lines about "deliver me from the sword and my darling from the power of the dog" from the psalm book without anyone noticing . He wanted to put it in his scrapbook.

[quote] Peter was clearly too afraid of Phil to confront him, and so like a coward chose to ignore Phil's bullying of Rose and the effect it has on her.

I meant George, not Peter. Sorry.

[quote] if you found there were scenes missing, it was entirely part of her intention

There was major drama during the filming in New Zealand when a freak storm smashed the sets and destroyed the footage.

Campion didn't have the money to reshoot the missing scenes.

Did they explain in the movie that George and Phil's parents lived all the way out on the East Coast, or why the boys moved to Montana without them? I didn't entirely understand that until I read this thread, and it was confusing to me, but maybe I missed something in the movie.

The parents lived in Salt Lake City. They left the ranch because they couldn't stand Phil either.

R369 Well you know what guys? In the book it’s Berkeley.

Loved it.

R414 WTF? How are you even coming up with this? NONE of that is even hinted at. So weird.

[quote]it's highly likely Bronco Henry abused George emotionally and that Phil is copying him, since Phil revered Bronco so much, and it's quite possible Bronco also sexually abused George and Phil bullies him because he's jealous.

I certainly buy the idea that BH abused George emotionally. Part of that emotional abuse might just be that BH did NOT abuse George sexually. This could explain George's passivity (for being overlooked) and Phil's sense of superiority (as he was the desired one).

In my view some of the comments about additional scenes or detail are warranted. The entire film relies on Phil’s power over the other characters and I don’t believe this was effectively established in the early scenes. Phil yells at the dancing revellers and engages in some schoolboy level bullying of Peter - fairly two dimensional stuff. His power over Rose and others then never makes sense. Something is definitely missing in the exposition.

The film may have worked better with a male director.

Wow.

[quote]The film may have worked better with a male director.

Agree!

The anti Kirsten Dunst obsessed freak earlier on in these threads is COMPLETELY WRONG about her performance. It’s beautifully done, and she will absolutely be nominated and most likely win. She is the current deserved leader on Gold Derby and has been for weeks. The more people see the performance, the further she’ll pull ahead.

R 424

In the book, Phil muses that Fatso is a way to get George's goat, which originated from Bronco Henry. Phil was his favorite, and much more. The narrative also compares Phil's leaner and more adept physicality to George's stolidness.

Interesting to hear about Elizabeth Moss. I read on a film blog that Paul Dano was originally supposed to play George. I thought Plemmons was terrific, but Dano would have been very believable as BC's brother, I’m sure.

I havnt seen the film yet but loved the book. I'm wondering if the twist at the end was as subtle as in the book.

Personally I love her work and look forward to it.

Watched it a second time, and I thought a lot of the "oh who knew?? It needed more scenes to explain the plot" comments.... are warranted. If anything there was a lot of really broad foreshadowing (the fire escape rope coiled under the window... close up shot near the beginning of the film) and, as mentioned in this thread, Dunst's anxiety about alcohol at the dinner at her cafe and the the gulping down of the cocktail as she in embarrassed at the dinner with the parents. Also "Bronco Henry" written on the vintage pornography.... would the character really have made sure his name was written on the front page of the porn in 1900? Or was it just helping us understand the plot etc.

The only thing remotely hard to follow was the leather thongs from Peter being the source of the anthrax.... it wasn't rocket science, but it wasn't apparent from what earlier scenes suggested. Maybe this is subtlety that R432 wants.

In short, on a second view, it was pretty standard cinematic storytelling, not mysterious scenes that required hyper-vigilant attention. There were movies this year (e.g. Titane) which required more of the viewer.

^^^ ... comments are NOT warranted

Titane is French so that weeds out the dumbdumb anglophones.

Paul Dano no thank you. Love Jessie.

What did Titans require? I wasn’t confused there.

[quote]The only thing remotely hard to follow was the leather thongs from Peter being the source of the anthrax.... it wasn't rocket science, but it wasn't apparent from what earlier scenes suggested.

Seemed obvious on the first viewing to me.

*Titane

[quote]Titane is French so that weeds out the dumbdumb anglophones.

Well.... no....

R437 There was a lot of absurdist shit, though not subtle. Did you really get that the car impregnated her?

Titane is not a Dany Boon cinema des cons. France makes great broad farces for idiots of course. Plenty of stupid French people. My point was English speaking dumbdumbs are not going to see TItane, and then be perplexed.

R431 Paul Dano Would be better in the main role, as a sociopath bully. He often plays those type of roles. Not so much a quiet, passive guy.

Paul Dano is, at most, C list

Benedict Humperdinck is A list

I’m watching the power of the dog, but the red light hasn’t come on yet so no need to put his tail in the socket.

[quote] Also "Bronco Henry" written on the vintage pornography.... would the character really have made sure his name was written on the front page of the porn in 1900? Or was it just helping us understand the plot etc.

I think they are fitness magazines that Bronco Henry subscribed to, thus the name on cover. They were used as soft porn by Phil and probably by Bronco too, hence a hint to Bronco's sexuality. There's also a printed line to the effect that being weak is a sin, a summation of Phil's learned homoerotophobia.

Paul Dano would have reminded me too much of There Will Be Blood. Also, Dano has never been fat so the “Fatso” nickname wouldn’t have made any sense. This casting just does not work.

I think Jessie Plemmons was perfect and I liked the added verisimilitude of his real-life marriage to Dunst.

R446 Such magazines were not "mailed", and the name is written in the top margin, not the subscriber.... it's just not something the character would do, buy a magazine like this and write his name on the top. Or at least so it seems to me...

One quibble I have, and it applies to many films, not just this one:

When a character takes a drag from a cigarette, and the person is in a medium (or larger) shot, the cigarette sounds like a nuclear explosion. I've smoked most of my adult life; like all humans, my ears are about a foot or less away from my mouth -- even that close, and in a silent room, I can still barely hear the ash. Such affectations in movies take me right out of the story.

It's a metaphor, r449. Not meant to be taken literally.

r450, it's a tired and overused metaphor. It needs to end.

R449 Time to quit?

I keep getting Bronco Henry confused with Buck Henry, White Bronco and Uncle Buck.

[quote] Time to quit?

I had quit for over a decade. Then the pandemic and lockdowns happened.... I beat it before, I'll beat it again!

I can't watch Elizabeth Moss (or any other Scientologist) without getting creeped out).

There's a lot in the book apparently that's not clear in the film. For example, I read that in the book it's clarified that Phil really does stink badly because he bathes only once a month, and never in the bathtub, always in the watering hole.

R444 He's not C list at best. I wasn't saying he should have be in the cast as the main character but someone mentioned him instead of Jesse and I just pointed out that he would be much better as the other brother, the cruel one.

R455 But you can watch Christians, Muslims etc. without being creeped out? Because those cults are a lot less dangerous and make a lot more sense, right?

In reply to R411:

George DOES confront Phil on at least two occasions, once about his hygiene and once at the very end when Phil freaks out over the hides. Why not confront Phil about Rose long before that if he is making her miserable on a daily basis? With his money and position, George could easily have bought his new family a house in town, since he seems to spend a lot of time away from the ranch, anyway.

[quote]He almost certainly did notice at some level, but because of his extreme passivity he chose not to address it and just ignored it, hoping the situation would change. [/quote]

Name ONE scene in the film that indicates George feels this way. I agree there SHOULD have been a scene indicating this, but instead George simply disappears from the narrative for large portions of Parts IV and V.

[quote]Obviously it was more than just her piano playing he was mocking, but they only had a limited amount of time to just us their relationship in every detail. Phil was constantly ridiculing her and her son, and making her feel powerless and unworthy, and unable to escape from him.[/quote]

Again, there is nothing obvious about it. The movie had time to spend showing us Peter hula-hooping, it could have spent five minutes or so on a montage showing Phil's abuse after Rose comes to the ranch. It's the ENTIRE MOTIVE for Phil's murder at the end of the film.

[quote]But it's clear by the time Peter points out the dog shadow on the mountain Phil has begun to see Peter as special and worth fucking.[/quote]

Agreed, that's when Phil's feelings towards Peter seem to change. However, Phil's sudden interest in Peter set off the chain of events that leads to the film's climax. There should have been a point, even just a long close-up, where we see Phil suddenly realize that seducing Rose's son might finish destroying her (and also gaining him a fuckbuddy). Instead, we cut from him chasing Peter away from the swimming hole to suddenly making friends in the cowboy camp scene. It's not subtle or artistic to skip Phil's moment of decision: It's sloppy and vague.

I don't hate the film. I actually rather like the film. But to pretend these gaps in the plot are simply further signs of Campion's genius instead of real omissions which happened because of production problems or mistakes in storytelling is specious. Power of the Dog is a good film, but it's a flawed film. All the ad hominem attacks on posters who think otherwise won't change that.

My god, you are tiresome, R459. Just, wow.

Whatever, R459. If more personal attacks are your only response to my points, then fuck right off. Blocked.

R460 He's right, though

This film was excellent. Definitely top 5 films of the year. However, I needed a gay sex scene between the protagonist and antagonist. Something similar to the scene in the tent in Brokeback Mountain. A sort of willing rape may have even been called for. I think it would have made it more realistic.

A cowboy gang bang of the retarded kid!

Give the people what they want!

R464 - Absolutely agree.

A bunch of young horny Cowboys would have definitely wanted to plow the dainty little boy that makes paper flowers.

[quote] A sort of willing rape may have even been called for.

Oh for fuck's sake.

You should look to porn for that. But it sounds like you watch way too much of that already.

Weird how so many want the movie to be akin to a math equation.

[quote] Name ONE scene in the film that indicates George feels this way.

I had not read the book yet I understood this immediately from the first scenes of the movie, where Phil calls George "Fatso" in an unkind fashion, and speaks harshly to George in other ways, yet George does not rise to the bait at all.You were clearly not paying enough attention if you didn't catch that.

btw, fuck your belligerent orders. No one here is yours to command.

According to Kirsten Dunst, Jane Campion and the editor cut out a lot of scenes and took away a lot of explanation to give it a more haunting , nerve-wracking quality.

Good on you guys/gals for chatting and arguing about this movie and your interpretations of scenes.

All I know it is the most-perfect movie I’ve seen in all of 2021 and 2020.

It is a masterpiece.

This discussion has become tiresome.

It’s a triumph. I normally don’t trust female directors, but she did an excellent job.

2 hours of boring sledgehammer imagery. The more I think about about it, the dumber it gets.

"Masterpiece"? hahahaha

[quote] Agreed, that's when Phil's feelings towards Peter seem to change. However, Phil's sudden interest in Peter set off the chain of events that leads to the film's climax. There should have been a point, even just a long close-up, where we see Phil suddenly realize that seducing Rose's son might finish destroying her (and also gaining him a fuckbuddy).

That might be one reason Phil was interested in Pete- to frustrate and antagonize Rose.

But Campion has said that a pivotal moment when things change for Phil was when he watched Pete walk in front of all the other cowboys as they mocked him and shouted "faggot" at him, and Pete wasn't fazed at all. Pete didn't give a fuck about what they were saying about him. Right after that moment, Phil sits with Pete and tells him how he's going to teach him stuff, show him the ropes (literally). Pete wasn't a macho man, but he had confidence in who he was and he wasn't ashamed, and Phil admired that because he was desperately hiding himself from others.

As I said upthread, the gaps in narrative flow, and the "leaps" of narrative faith that some here are arguing about... are less noticeable or non-existent if you watch it a second time.

However R475 that explanation of the "swerve" in the Phil as explained by Campion is interesting. I do think Phil was "attracted" to the little fagala from the beginning. His "bullying, burning the flowers..." at first meeting were a kind of flirting. The way middle school boys used to taunt girls back in the day. Buried sexual energy in the power dynamic of the taunting. But also, the sudden "I've been to harsh on you kid..." said with what seemed a new gentleness was surprising... and life sometimes has twists and turns that just don't readily give themselves up to reason nor to a bunch of hyper-critical homosexuals on a social media site.

[quote] This discussion has become tiresome.

Now it is the time on "Sprockets" when we dance!

"It’s a triumph. I normally don’t trust female directors, but she did an excellent job."

Nice how you openly say what a dumb prejudiced cunt you are.

In his interview with the NYTimes, Kodi Smit-McPhee says of Peter's murder of Phil, "[Peter] didn’t necessarily plan it out from A to Z, he’s one who really just acts upon the moment."

R479 But went out on a horse (uncharacteristically), to look for a diseased cow, with gloves and instruments, to pick up strips of leather infected with anthrax... nah, no planning there.

Does Netflix have any plans to re-release the film to theaters? Perhaps after the Oscar nominations are announced? I would seriously love to see this again on a big screen.

It's eligible for Oscars so the film must have been released to theaters as well as Netflix, r481.

Yes, r482, it played where I live, but I missed it.

[quote]I keep getting Bronco Henry confused with Buck Henry, White Bronco and Uncle Buck.

The whole movie gives me PTSD flashbacks to the old Rawhide on 8th Avenue.

It gives [italic]me[/italic] PTSD flashbacks to Amanda Blake as Miss Kitty!

There are a lot of homoerotic imagery in "The Power of The Dog".

"and life sometimes has twists and turns that just don't readily give themselves up to reason nor to a bunch of hyper-critical homosexuals on a social media site."

Or as a sad cross-eyed talking head once said, Datalounge is a vile pit of trollery.

[quote]There are a lot of homoerotic imagery in "The Power of The Dog".

Yes there is. There were two that jumped out to me pretty clearly. One was when Phil was braiding the rope and he kept gently running his fingers up and down it. The other was when he was pounding the fence post into the ground. It was like he was beating off a huge cock.

[quote]Kodi Smit-McPhee says of Peter's murder of Phil, "[Peter] didn’t necessarily plan it out from A to Z, he’s one who really just acts upon the moment."

Well Kodi Smit-McPhee isn't all that bright then. Peter learned to ride so he could go in search of dead cattle, then he skinned one, dried the hide and cut it into strips, all to be ready to implement his plan. If that seems spontaneous you're in the high-diving end of the autistic pool.

R488 I notice that Phil seemed to act this way in the presence of Peter or when he was thinking of Bronco Henry. There was a scene where Phil was caressing Bronco Henry's saddle as he was polishing it.

If only Jane would lean into more of a Hollywood career, she could have ended the movie with a big power ballad by Celine Dion to play over the closing credits, and I’d like to imagine it as something a kin to a mash up between these two songs:

And this:

This movie should have been way longer.

I kept waiting for something to happen and when it did, it ended,

I went into this movie with high expectations because I love Westerns, Jane Campion films, this type of plot (Phantom Thread was my favorite film of its year), but I finished the film disappointed. I agree with a lot of the critiques laid out in this thread, but ultimately what failed for me was Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance. Nothing about him in this role worked for me. It was extremely tricky—you’re supposed to find him implausibly macho, you’re supposed to wonder if he really turned on a dime towards Peter or if it’s some long bullying prank, I think—but I just couldn’t connect to that performance, it left me totally cold and thus the film did as well. There was lots of beauty in it but no feeling. I would have liked to see Christian Bale try this one instead.

I contrast this with Belfast, which was far less sophisticated, with significantly more uneven acting (the lead child cannot act!), but connected so strongly with me emotionally.

That being said, Jesse Plemons was phenomenal and should be getting more awards talk.

Christian Bale would have been a great choice, R495. Him or Michael Fassbender.

*He, sorry

For the Campion fans, is IN THE CUT worth a look? I notice it's available on Netflix, always meant to watch it but remember the reviews were less than thrilling. But it does have a young hot mustached Mark Ruffalo and apparently some NYC street authenticity so there's that....

Any opinions?

R495 I agree 100%

r489, my theory is that Peter is consumed with curiosity about life forms as well as being a bit of a sociopath; he encountered the dead cow, cut it up, saving the hide (and probably other elements) both to study and keep for whatever purpose he could think of; when the other hides are taken and Phil (with his injured hand that he has allowed to fester) goes into a conniption, he puts the pieces together and offers him the anthrax-ridden hide. I bet he wasn't even sure if it would work; his final scene is a mixture of satisfaction and wonder that it did work.

Where is this available to watch?

Google it, you lazy whore ^

Here you go r501.

If a movie needs this much explanation, is it really that good though?

R338, real-life Kirsten Dunst is 39-years-old, so it's very plausible for her character to have been the mother of an (18?)-year-old teen; especially back then, when people had children at a much younger age.

I loved this film! If it comes to down to this vs. West Side Story, I sure as hell hope this one wins. It's nice to see cinema that is actually new and original and not just a remake of something that was already done decades ago.

Dunst is the same age as Elisabeth Moss, who was the original choice for the part. And yeah, most women back then were married and mothers by age 20.

Peter started making meticulous plans (as meticulous as his paper flowers) during the scene when his mother was so drunk and pathetic. He tells her that he's going to help her.

He seemed to waffle a little once Phil started being nice to him. Phil also seems to back off Rose during that time, which may have made Peter hope that befriending Phil would defuse the situation. When Phil lost his shit over the hides and started screaming about Rose, Peter realized that Phil would never stop trying to destroy his mother. You can see the realization on Smit-McPhee's face in the scene: It's great acting. Immediately after that, Peter offered Phil the anthrax-infected hide strips.

The machismo is supposed to be performative. Bale and Fassbender are naturally butch.

Fassbender would have been good, though. He has that air of menace that would have sold Phil's terrorizing of Rose even when we didn't get to see most of it. Cumberbatch just seemed bitchy.

I’m proud to announce that I shall be playing (convincingly, I’m sure) sensitive young Peter in Doggie Power!, the new Broadway musical adaptation of Power Of The Dog. I can’t wait until you hear all the wonderful songs I get to sing, like 'Hula-Hooping My Way Into Your Heart' and 'Hey There, Anthrax!' Other characters will probably have songs, too, but whatevs.

[quote]If a movie needs this much explanation, is it really that good though?

Are Shakespeare's plays or "The Great Gatsby" really that good if they lead to thousands of scholarly articles, hundreds of academic courses or millions of individual conversations examining them?

All this discussion just goes to show how subtle Campion's storytelling is. Posters are pointing out the things she included that many people missed. That someone wasn't paying close enough attention to notice these details doesn't mean the she failed. The information is there if you're watching for it. I finished watching it thinking it was a great movie and even now I'm still finding that I missed some things. I imagine on a second or third viewing, I'll appreciate it even more than I already do.

It's just nice to finally have a film that doesn't beat its audience over the head with its obviousness. It's nice to have something again that prompts thought and discussion.

r510, Phil's big solo is "Bitch, Please."

[quote]If a movie needs this much thought is it really that good though?

Hence, the decline of our civilization....

I must be the only idiot who didn’t realize anthrax existed in 1920. I had heard there was a twist and kept thinking, is this taking place in the future? How is there anthrax there?

[quote] If a movie needs this much explanation, is it really that good though?

Except it really doesn’t need explanation. You can, I suppose, interpret it any number of ways, but the narrative itself really couldn’t be clearer, provided you’re actually watching it and not playing on your iPad at the same time.

I suggested Christian Bale because I find him surprisingly delicate and vulnerable, almost tender, for someone who in a snap can seem like a meathead. And he is just phenomenally talented. One of the few moments BC was effective to me was the small, hair-raising scene towards the beginning when he’s standing up a flight of stairs from George, trying to goad him into reminiscing about their father (?) bringing home hookers to sleep with them. And I was thinking, he reminds me of Christian Bale here.

Corey Feldman should have played Phil. Pete would have caught him practicing MJ dance moves in secret and asked it he could hula hoop there with him.

Thank you R503

I thought Shape of Water was dumb but Michael Shannon's energy would have made a great Phil.

Was it implied or suggested they had sex? What about in the book?

It must be an interesting film to nearly fill up an entire thread of its own in less than a week. Most new movies don't warrant more than a couple dozen responses on DL of late. This has been like old school DL (the WSS threads have been good as well).

This movie inspires great passion r521

I consider THE POWER OF THE DOG the best movie of 2021

We’re all desperate for interesting, grown-up films. I disliked this one but I’d watch it 50 times over a superhero film.

Amen r523.

This great thread also reminds me of the DL thread on the HBO Mike White series WHITE LOTUS.

So many fascinating opinions and points of view on what actually happened, "unlikeable" characters you become invested in, and big disagreements on the quality of the writing, direction and acting (I loved WHITE LOTUS).

I find deciphering films interesting but I know not everyone does.

Since watching this, every time someone annoys me in traffic I yell “You fat-faced bitch!” at them.

Jane Campion talks about why she wanted Cumberbatch to play Phil:

[quote] Cumberbatch’s sensitivity in the 2012 BBC drama “Parade’s End” caught Campion’s attention. “I’m pretty sure a lot of men can do the outer gruff stuff,” she said. “But can they go to the other place? The thing I love about Phil is he’s a lover. He takes risks for it. That he falls in a way for Peter or has love in his heart is one reason why you can handle his character, as he is stretching into something else.”

[quote] “Phil is an educated soul,” said producer Iain Canning in an interview. “Masculinity in its toxic form is his prison. It’s the complicated legacy of the masquerade of what masculinity is meant to be.”

[quote] And Cumberbatch submitted to wearing cowboy jumpers, chaps, and cowboy woolies. “Sexy,” said Campion. “It’s about his presentation of himself as a man and the exhaustion of that. Because it’s difficult for men, especially if you have a secret. The secret is that he loves men. Or in particular, Bronco Henry. We’re dangling the charismatic aggressive masculine identity and deconstructing that.”

It's not perfect, but I'll take a million more films like this, please.

When is the Asian reboot released?

I think Corey Stoll , who is sexy and can play menacing, would have been great for Phil.

That's nice, R531. But Cumberbatch delivered sexy and menacing quite well, in my opinion.

I really don't think Corey Stoll could muster up enough menace. He's too much of a mensch.

Splashing around in that Montana river must've been mighty cold.

But R531 wanted to CONTRIBUTE to the conversation, here!

[quote] the narrative itself really couldn’t be clearer, provided you’re actually watching it and not playing on your iPad at the same time.

Excuse me, I was very much NOT playing on my iPad while watching this film!

R532 Sexy is very subjective. I find Cumberbatch repulsive and would rather sleep with a woman.

[quote]would rather sleep with a woman

Pics please.

Speaking of the White Lotus, I’d liked to have seen Murray Bartlett take a swing at Phil.

R522 - what are “WSS threads?” Also, I’m so glad movies like this are available to the general public on a huge platform like Netflix. I go to independent film houses and seek out these kinds of productions, but most mainstream idiots are too involved with shit like TikTok to do so. I’m imagining some young gay boy will accidentally come across this movie and be inspired to become the next great filmmaker, writer, or artist.

WSS = West Side Story

R534 Although it was shot in NZ. The Otago region of the South Island is pretty far down, so the water might have been a bit chilly.

The (to an American westener) odd/foreign landscape was at first a bit off-putting... I kept thinking, "that's not Montana... seems too flat, too dry, not enough trees, no real mountains..." But in the end the physical locations strangeness worked for me... seeming so alien and lonely.

I predict this will soon be a Broadway musical.

Only if it has an exclamation point r543.

R543 It’s really more suited to be an opera.

The topography didn't look that much different from Bozeman or Lewiston.

[quote]Places where men live and work together can be intensely homoerotic.

R212 explains the homoeroticism of the US Marine Corps. "Generation Kill" does a great job of expanding on it.

Excuse me. LewisTOWN, Montana.

R546, I thought the same thing. I didn't find the cinematography so unbelievable as MT.

Bozeman, Montanta.

Yep, R549. Not all of Montana is Glacier National Park. A good portion of the state is part of the Great Plains.

I just thought it was nice to see Jesse Plemons not be the villain for once.

I totally hear what you're saying r552, but somehow I never think of him as playing villains.

Did Kirsten Dunst and Jesse Plemons meet on this film or were they already married when they were cast?

They met while filming the series Fargo.

Michael Fassbender would have been a great Phil. He was vicious but multi-layered in 12 Years A Slave

[quote]I predict this will soon be a Broadway musical.

The Boys In The Bandana

When does the sequel come out?

I loved it

R509 He WAS a bitch. He was a full-blown sistah. IN the sisterhood, ok.

[quote] [R522] - what are “WSS threads?”

We Shall See, Rose.

[quote] I predict this will soon be a Broadway musical.

"Oklahomo!"

"What a luxury to hire such wonderful actors and barely give them any lines to speak."

I also wished Adam Beach had more to do

R556 Agreed 100%. And he has sex appeal in spades of which Cumberbatch has zero.

But I suppose one can't expect a heterosexual woman (Jan Campion) to have any idea what appeals to gay men.

Or perhaps Jane Campion was more interested in casting the actor she felt best for the part.

R565 She does not have the best judgement in casting. More misses than hits.

Yet you feel that the actor chosen should appeal to gay men.

Michael Fassbender is as good an actor as Benedict and coukd have portrayed the more cerebral side well too. Plus he's not shy about showing the goods. If Peter got a glimpse of that cock he might not have killed him!

Perhaps Cumberbatch's physical repulsiveness is key to the character -- probably the only time he got laid was with Bronco Henry, all the guys at college turned him down, adding to his bitterness. Casting somebody like Michael Fassbender or even Corey Stoll would have undone that.

Give it up Corey Stoll troll

Nobody knows who the fuck Corey Stoll is

Benedict Humperdinck is A list

Corey Stoll is D list and, after googling him, hideous

Benedict Cumberbatch was perfect casting. I don’t know what some of you people are thinking,

Michael Fassbender is too hot for this role.

Fass is not hot , what are you taking about? He is disgusting

R566 Says you

Don't get the weird comments about female directors. This is based on a book, she didn't create the characters

I don't even like Cumberbatch that much but I thought he was great in this

In the original novel, Phil is supposed to be handsome.

If they don't name the inevitable porn rip-off "Power of the Dong," I'll cry.

[quote]If they don't name the inevitable porn rip-off "Power of the Dong," I'll cry.

Pics please.

[quote] If they don't name the inevitable porn rip-off "Power of the Dong," I'll cry.

It’ll premiere on SayUncle.com

You can't substitute New Zealand for Montana. It's a sacrilege.

Honey, if they could make a zillion Westerns in Spain in the 1960s, they certainly can make one in New Zealand today.

Release your pearls.

Yeah, the scenery was not the issue. I agree it gave an otherworldly, almost dark fairy-tale quality to the movie. I've been to New Zealand and it really does look like that. No wonder they film so much fantasy there.

The book is based on actual incidents in the author's family. His mother married a kind man, his stepfather's brother was very much like Phil. This man mocked and humiliated the author's mother in all the ways depicted in the book. And his step-uncle died in the same manner, though it was an accident, not deliberate . . . He was handling wet manure-covered poles and a splinter jabbed into his palm.

Gothic western.

The author was a closet case

So it's basically the author's revenge fantasy. Well, good stories have been inspired by less.

R582 Wow didn't know that, thanks for the context!

Cumberbatch has a really flat ass.

Men in 1920s Montana hadn't yet learned the value of squats.

There's a Part 2 thread now.

Cumberbatch has an Englishman's ass. No amount of squats will help.

Surprisingly, Hiddleston, who is equally pale and anglo, has a rather nice ass.

Peter almost rolled his eyes when Phil interrupted his plant picking. I think Phil actually started to like Peter, but Peter hated Phil the whole time just like the author hated his own real-life step-uncle for being mean to his mother. You see it in his eyes. I think most narcissistic people think everyone likes them and their loudness or extroverted behaviour. Some people can tolerate it. But ultimately, Phil was an obstacle.

Omg

I agree that Peter's dislike of Phil never changed. He was only friendly in hopes of diffusing Phil's abuse of Rose. Once it was clear that wasn't possible, Peter went for the kill.

I haven't finished it. I'm enjoying ALL performances except Cumberbatch--who I like, but not in this. He's just not selling it for me. Even his walk is so affected, it's annoying. I must be getting sick of movies in general. They're SO long now.

Finish it, r593. I spent the first half hating BC's performance and the second half admiring the casting. The more that gets revealed, the more it makes sense, including that walk. You may still not like his performance, but I think you’ll see what he and Campion are going for at least.

[quote]The more that gets revealed, the more it makes sense, including that walk.

Yeah. If you'd been fucked in that saddle by Bronco Henry as many times as I have, you'd walk funny too.

The descent into poverty and madness of Sculpture Dave Poulin, creator of the original bronze statue of Lucille Ball in Celeron, N.Y., who gives up his passion out of the shame and ridcule. It will be like a small town Rent hybrid with The Agony and the Ecstasy, and Michelangelo and Lucille Ball will be the Greek Chorus.

oops!

R596 Is this Jane’s next project?

So Peter grows up to be an Anthrax-rope killing' Lucy-sculptin' maniac? Didn't see that coming.

Those Lucy teeth!