The Power of the Dog, Thread 2

I watched it yesterday. I haven't read previous threads as wanted to go in without knowing anything. I found the characters pretty obvious. I knew what the ending would be but not how it would happen. But by then I didn't care. Kodi Smith was the best for me. Whenever he was on screen it clicked

I thought it was excellent.

What are the thoughts on Kirsten Dunst's performance?

The YouTube shipper fans are already producing videos about Phil and Peter

R3, I thought she was great

It's driving the WSS fans furious this film is doing well while theirs is not, for reasons I do not understand.

Fan of both here.

It’s another film that visits the benighted past to hallow the suffering of homosexuals in a previous age, as if gay people in the present had no stories to tell.

I watched it. Meh. Won’t be watching it twice.

Peter would’ve gotten that bony ass pounded by Phil if I made the movie.

Fingersnaps of approval to the SJW at r8!

Brokeback Mountain is set in 1963. A Single Man is set in 1964. Boys in the Band is set in 1968. Call Me By Your Name is set in 1983. The Normal Heart is set in the early ‘80s as well.

Though I think the film is flawed in certain aspects (which we discussed at length in the previous thread), I do like that a serious adult drama that is not a remake has turned out to have legs. I'm sick to death of recycled stories and superhero movies.

Any riders here? I take it Cumberbatch had some experience with horses from prior film work, but Western riding and making it look like you were born to it is another matter. Did he look authentic?

Like West Side Story r12?

There's a superhero in WSS?

[quote] I do like that a serious adult drama that is not a remake

Learn to read r15

Dear God, that video at r4! Who in their right mind would want to see a romance between those two characters? At best they're a potential sexual predator and a budding sociopath. And take away the characters...? They seem like perfectly nice guys, but not exactly two people I'd want to see naked, rolling around in bed. Are we so starved for gay romance in this world that *this* is who we're fantasizing about?

Yes r17

There’s a 95% chance that the video was put together by a woman.

[quote]Learn to read [R15]

Learn to write r16

The dulcet tones of Harrow and LAMDA wedded to the twang of the American West.

What could go wrong?

Just a few of the quality gay films from 2005 (i.e the year "Brokeback Mountain" was released) onwards with major portions set more or less in the present day and reflecting problems of contemporary gay men:

"Love, Simon"

"Moonlight"

"Handsome Devil"

"Keep the Lights On"

"Beginners"

"God's Own Country"

"The Night Listener"

"Love is Strange"

"Other People"

"Pain and Glory"

"King Cobra"

"Beach Rats"

I am hugely grateful for films set in the past about gay life. It's important for all people, gay or straight or otherwise, to know the struggles gay men went through and the strictures we endured in our history.

B U M P

[quote]It's driving the WSS fans furious this film is doing well while theirs is not, for reasons I do not understand.

What a dumb observation. I wasn't aware we could only pick one to be a fan of.

Agreed, r24. POTD and WSS are my two favorite films of the year. Bravo to Spielberg and Campion both.

Also, comparing the perceived success and failure of two movies, one released on Netflix and a handful of art houses and the other in wide release with no streaming, is pure nonsense.

Between this and WSS, at least people are talking about movies here again.

R26 Wait, it was a movie? I thought it was a TV show???

Sorry, I didn't buy it. We're supposed to believe a deeply repressed gay is so unhappy with who he is that he takes it out on everyone around him? Too implausible, sorry!

And more than that, r28, Cumberbatch had such a weirdly wide stance.

This Spanish film is also pretty good. On HBO Max under Out in the Open.

[quote]And more than that, [R28], Cumberbatch had such a weirdly wide stance.

R29 I thought he was trying to imitate the way cowboys walk, a wide stance and slightly bowlegged from riding horses.

R31 In the Lincoln Center film talk he made a point about how hard he worked riding and trying to get that cowboy stance, which I assumed to be kind of a bow legged, heavy balled walk he was doing.

I liked it a lot although the Rose character and her descent and recovery from alcoholism is kind of off and doesn’t really make sense.

Is this movie popular in non-gay crowds? I cannot imagine it is.

Expand your ancient imagination, because TPOD is a hit among the breeders r34

What would the normie masses possibly get out of this shit? It's not even entertaining.

Moron ^

It's hugely popular everywhere. Remember that many straights also loved "Call Me By Your Name," "Carol," "Weekend," "Brokeback," and so on.

I understand why the Spielbergs and Nolans of the world bemoan streaming, but, let's face it. There's virtually no chance that a Jane Campion film, in 2021, would reach this wide an audience and generate this much press.

After not making a film more than a decade, she must be very pleased with the response which has been dramatically amplified by being on Netflix.

Plus (in my country at least), many of Campion's earlier films have now been released on Netflix as well, including "An Angel at My Table," "The Piano," and "Bright Star," making them available to new audiences.

I love the character name “Bronco Henry.”

This film could have been even more popular with a better actor in the lead. Cumberbatch has a cold fish aspect he is unable to turn off, and I think it would have worked better to have someone who could show a flash of warmth 3/4 of the way through, just before Phil meets his untimely end.

I found the movie frequently underlit, but I don’t know if that was the director’s choice, a miscalculated projector, or my eldergay eyes.

R42 Did you watch it on Netflix? I know for an iPad if you tap the screen and activate the background architecture on the left is a sliding bar for brightness and you can slide it up to brighten everything.

At the theater, r43. I’ll look at it again on Netflix to see if it’s different.

Btw, the ebook edition of the novel is five bucks on Amazon today.

R42, it’s a problem people have had with a lot of recent films: they’re all so damn shadowy.

The Lead is weird looking

Loved this film.

I just watched it last night. A few observations.

1. I'm guessing the people who are troubled by this being filmed in New Zealand are too young to be familiar with the Spaghetti Western genre.

2. I think the reason why critics are so hyped about Cumberbatch in this is that he's finally playing a character they feel comfortable with, not some kind of quirky or tormented genius but a hard assed macho American cowboy.

3. Speaking of Spaghetti Westerns, this reminded me a LOT of "Once Upon A Time In The West," and Cumberbatch's performance reminded me a LOT of Henry Fonda's in that film, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if Campion told Cumby to study that in preparation.

4. The business between the evil rancher and the boy followed a very standard motif of the evil villain who has the tables turned on him by the virtuous maiden he lusts after. So it's not really an intrinsically gay story at all, just a gay variation. And does anybody believe that this asshole would have remained celibate with all those young fit men around him and only letting loose when this kid shows up? He would have been raping the fuck out of them, or at least picking out one or two of them as his sex slave. But then, like "The Piano," this isn't meant to be a story about real sexual politics or desires, it's a sex fantasy for those who like a bit of the old softcore BDSM.

I know they are trying to pass New Zealand off as Montana, but the lighting and topography are off. I get the spaghetti Western trade off since those are westerns that are less reality grounded. Otherwise, I liked the movie if not totally in love with it.

Kodi Smit-McPhee deserves all the awards. As far as LGBTQ+ representation is concerned, it was a character for the ages especially when you give some thought to why he did what he did and HOW he did it. Not just the method the character used but how he set it up through the low key seduction. Most of the performance was without a lot of dialogue and that was astounding.

I think Kodi will win the Oscar, deservedly so.

Ahhh Benedict's was sexually repressed and unable to express his emotions because he was hiding who he was? Raping other cowboys? Maybe in your fantasies

Is it possible that up until the point in the movie Phil had always wanted and needed to be the Boy in the relationship with a strong manly father figure and couldn’t find it because no one was a tough as him as Bronco Billy had made him, but with Peter he finally discovers wanting to be the Daddy and teach Peter to be the Boy? Peter brings out his tenderness and paternal instincts.

I think Phil just wanted someone to hula hoop with.

Ugh the thought of having sex when everyone is smelly/dirty/not clean. Whenever I think of the hygiene issues it definitely changes the erotic aspect of it. Seems like sex was note about just getting each other off rather than real intimacy.

r56, I thought the exact same thing. Maybe that’s why Peter did what he did to Phil. Not just to protect his Mom but the thought of making out with this stinky non-hygienic closet case was too much to bear.

R56, but Phil took exfoliating mud-baths in that wild creek every other week.

Once in the movie Peter calls his mother Rose instead of Mom. Why is that?

I call my mother by her first name sometimes as well. I think it's something some gay men do.

R59 More than once.

I did not see the ending coming.

[quote] And does anybody believe that this asshole would have remained celibate with all those young fit men around him and only letting loose when this kid shows up? [bold]He would have been raping the fuck out of them, or at least picking out one or two of them as his sex slave.[/bold] But then, like "The Piano," this isn't meant to be a story about real sexual politics or desires, it's a sex fantasy for those who like a bit of the old softcore BDSM.

Speaking of BDSM sex fantasy...

Peter calling his mother by her first name, Rose, most of the time is from the original Thomas Savage novel--it's not original to Campion's screenplay.

My guess is that it's to indicate the unusual relationship the two of them have--he does not see her as a traditional mother, but as someone he has to protect actively even though he is her child.

[quote] Ugh the thought of having sex when everyone is smelly/dirty/not clean.

Welcome to the way life was prior to WW2. People did not bathe or shower very often, especially out on the Montana prairie.

If you really think just because you're a wealthy rancher you could use your ranch hands in 1925 Montana as your personal sex slaves, I think the movie was a little too hard for you. Maybe you'd be better off just sticking to Dark Alley gay porn--that sounds intellectually challenging enough for you.

Yeah, any rancher trying to turn his ranch hands into his sex slaves would be beaten up and burnt out in no time. What would be far more likely is a private arrangement between two men that's kept very discreet.

Dr Richard Strauss abused a bunch of muscular athletes at Ohio State and no one beat him up

[quote] Dr Richard Strauss abused a bunch of muscular athletes at Ohio State and no one beat him up

That happened post-Stonewall in a large city; not in 1925 in East Bumfucke, Montana.

But why am I even responding? You're just trolling, obviously.

I'm not the same person who made the comment about him having "sex slaves" so I'm not sure why you're accusing me of trolling

There are plenty of accounts of military guys being harassed or assaulted by their commanding officers, going back way before Stonewall. And, no, they didn't beat up their superiors.

[quote] There are plenty of accounts of military guys being harassed or assaulted by their commanding officers, going back way before Stonewall. And, no, they didn't beat up their superiors.

And there are indeed people in history who have struck out of the blue by meteorites; but that didn't happen in this story either--nor would any sane person expect it to have happened.

Except male/male harassment and assault is significantly more common than getting hit by a meteorite, but you knew that, right?

Oh for fuck's sake.

Let me quote to you yet again what the poster said above that started this whole argument:

[quote]And does anybody believe that this asshole would have remained celibate with all those young fit men around him and only letting loose when this kid shows up? He would have been raping the fuck out of them, or at least picking out one or two of them as his sex slave.

That's the argument that I was objecting to. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Richard Strauss molesting athletes at Ohio State in the 1970s and 1980s, nor about ordinary male/male sexual assault or harassment. It had to do with the likelihood of a wealthy rancher, whose brother is friends with the governor and the First Lady of the state and inviting them to the ranch for dinner, making literal [bold]sex slaves[/bold] of his ranch hands in 1925 rural Montana.

If you cannot see the difference between owning sex slaves on a ranch in 1925 and ordinary male/male harassment, I cannot help you.

Being wealthy or a rancher would prevent someone from raping guys? If anything being well-connected would make it easier to get away with it

r73 - give up. You're absolutely right, but you're arguing with a contrarian who won't stop and is seemingly incapable of understanding a nuanced distinction between two things. I'm getting serious aspie vibes from him.

As Barnie Frank once told an obstinate constituent at a town hall, "Ma'am, I'm not going to engage with you any further. That would be like arguing with a dining room table."

Well, I know how to spell "Barney Frank" unlike someone....

I also know that wealthy and well-connected people can get away with horrible shit, you don't seem to be bright enough to get that.

I just finished the book after seeing the movie last week. Savage has a dry wit that Campion left out. Savage's describing an undertaker's "delighted grin contemplating your body some years hence" is the sort of wry undertone that runs through the book, even though it's finally another tale of revenge served sly and cold. Campion focuses more on the sexuality that is mostly implied in the book.

Phil's character can't abide what he sees as weakness in anyone. He's a Puritan and sees lust as a weakness so that he's not going to rape anyone. He's blind to his own failings and has only contempt for love. All of that died with Bronco Henry. Peter brings it all back full circle.

The history of Bronco Henry....

Being a ranch hand in 1920s Montana was different from being a university athlete or an enlisted man in the military. People in the latter contexts were at the bottom of an entrenched hierarchy and would have difficulty complaining or moving on. A ranch hand could easily get a job at a different ranch and tell everyone about the abusive queer running his old ranch, and the whisper campaign would destroy Phil's reputation and livelihood. Phil is just a ranch owner, not a person with a high rank in a powerful institutional hierarchy.

Apples and oranges.

Phil was based on the real life brother of Thomas Savage's stepfather

Can Montana ranchers' sex slaves get anthrax from beating a dead horse?

I liked the movie a lot. How did Campion do as a director here?

I think you answered your own question, R82

[quote]How did Campion do as a director here?

R82 If you saw the movie and liked it, I don't understand what you're asking. Please clarify your question.

I think a lot of people had similar issues with understanding Brokeback Mountain and how taboo it was to be gay in a rural area, and how even suspicion could have serious and sometimes deadly consequences. . Even though homophobia still exists, it’s nowhere near as bad as it was. All of that repression ultimately manifests itself in ugly ways, which explains the Phil character.

You can like a movie and still not like directing.

I really liked "Passing" because of the screenplay and the performances, for example, but I thought Rebecca Hall's direction was quite weak. She made terrible choices with how she set up her shots.

There’s an interesting 20 minute behind the scenes documentary on the making of the movie that is now on Netflix and worth the viewing if you found the film interesting and want to know more about its filming.

12 Oscar nominations, including the murder twink

Well I just watched this yesterday and have read through both the original thread and this one (part 2). I intend to watch it again though, because I am ashamed to admit the end of the movie went right over my head, and no, I did not play with my phone or even look at it once during the movie, nor am I a mouth-breathing Marvel comic book movie stan.

R89 here. It reminded me in some ways of The Lost Daughter, where characters act a certain way and it isn't apparent why. Motivation is not spoon-fed, but I don't think it's a sign of a "genius" director if you have to use your imagination to figure out motive for behavior. Many exceptional and acclaimed projects make motivation pretty damn clear without "spoonfeeding".

Bigtime

R90 I felt the same way about "Passing."

[quote] I felt the same way about "Passing."

Another inscrutable movie. I agree. Used to be when people made an incoherent movie, it would get called out for that.

I also hate the glut of horror movies that allude to some mysterious entity/creature in a house or the forest—but most of the movie is just creepy scenes or unexplainable gore stitched together with ultimately little plot or resolution. Stylistically they are interesting, but sick of watching 90 minutes of meaningless creepy.