DISAPPOINTING NEWER MOVIE: THE POWER OF THE DOG

Benedict Cumberbatch

THE POWER OF THE DOG (2021). Director: Jane Campion. NOTE: This review gives away important plot points.

In 1925 Montana two brothers, Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and George (Jesse Plemons), live together in a big house and work a ranch. Phil is a charismatic macho type who often belittles his shyer, nicer brother as "Fatso." Phil is furious when George marries a widow named Rose (Kirsten Dunst), moving her in, and even more furious when her "sissy" 16-year-old son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) comes home from school. As Rose becomes drunk every day due to the tension, Phil hopes that George will throw her out. Phil tries to bond with Peter, ostensibly to turn him against his mother. Pretending to befriend Phil, Peter manages to get Phil to let down his guard and become aware of his true feelings towards the boy. But Peter has his own plans that may be even more sinister ... 

The Power of the Dog is based on a novel by Thomas Savage, a closet queen who married a woman, had three children, and came out to his daughter as gay very late in life. Let me make it clear from the first that studies of pathetic closet cases written by pathetic closet cases are among my least favorite sub-genres. I also get mighty tired of people thinking there's something profound in exploring that not-so-new stereotype of repressed homosexual men who overcompensate with hyper-masculinity. Right off the top of my head I can think of several movies with this theme, with American Beauty and The Other Side of the Wind coming immediately to mind and there are a great many others. In 1967 when the novel was published this may have been unique (but probably wasn't) but today it's nothing but a cliche. Why Jane Campion (or anyone else) felt compelled to make a movie out of this old and old-fashioned novel is beyond me. It's another modern-day movie like Tar and others that presents distinctly negative homosexual characters. And am I wrong in suggesting that movies about gay men should perhaps be made by gay men, and gay studies made by people who are actually gay? 

Jesse Plemons and Kirstin Dunst

But let's get to the film itself. The performances from the entire cast are quite good, and the movie boasts often stunning cinematography by Ari Wegner. (Johnny Greenwood's score, which has been charitably described as "minimalist," is terrible.) While Jane Campion may have won an undeserved Oscar for directing the film, I can't believe that a more gifted or at least a different director couldn't have made a film that was more compelling and entertaining. I don't think the film is well-directed at all and it eventually becomes so tedious that it nearly made it onto my list of "Films I Couldn't Quite Finish." (I have friends who never did finish it.)  I've often said that (supposed) subtlety can be awfully over-rated, but much of this movie is about as subtle as a sledgehammer: Phil whipping a horse's head in lieu of Rose; Phil practically having an orgasm over a hanky once handled by his youthful hero, crush and possible sex partner with the silly name of "Bronco Henry." 

Kodi Smith-McPhee

Frankly I think many viewers will be left with a feeling of "is that all there is?" Even if they have read the novel and understand the ending -- the "sissy" boy cleverly murders the butch closet case and would-be molester -- they may still feel cheated by the film's mediocrity and its essentially reactionary tone. I mean, are these the kind of gay protagonists we need in films in the 21st century? Yes, the allegedly progressive will say that Phil's problem isn't his homosexuality but his repression of and attitude towards same, but you've still got a portrait of a nasty faggot, a bitchy boy-lover, an utter stereotype despite his machismo, who gets murdered. How "progressive" is that? It's as if Savage and Campion were saying that even masculine gay men are nothing but big bitches who go after boys and apparently despise women. Why has the so-called liberal establishment in Hollywood embraced this film? (Do I have to ask? Being homosexual is still considered a negative.) 

One final note: my dear friend Larry Quirk was in Thomas Savage's writing class at Suffolk university. Larry told me that he handed in a story of a boy with an unrequited crush on another boy who hopes that they can consummate their relationship. Savage read the story and told Larry he would have preferred to see the protagonist triumphing over his "affliction" -- his homosexuality. Trying to do just that in real life, Savage got married and stayed in the closet, seeing men in secret, for decades. Writers like Savage can only see gay men through their very limited and self-hating perspective, which means that I don't find their work very relevant in this day and age. And I wish no one else did either. People can read and study books like this for their historical value, of course, but making major Hollywood movies out of them is another matter. 

Verdict: Impressive cinematography, some good acting, little else. **. 

ALL GOOD THINGS

ALL GOOD THINGS (2010). Director: Andrew Jarecki.

David Marks (Ryan Gosling) is considered the fucked-up son of real estate man, Sanford Marks (Frank Langella). One good thing in his life seems to be his wife, Katie (Kirsten Dunst), who discovers that he's becoming increasingly moody, distant, and violent. One day Katie simply disappears and is never seen again. Then bad things happen to two of David's friends, Deborah (Lily Rabe), who may have been blackmailing him, and Malvern Bump (Philip Baker Hall). All Good Things is, of course, a thinly-disguised look at the life, times and literal trials of Robert Durst, widely believed to have been responsible for the deaths and or disappearances of at least three people. Ryan Gosling [Fracture] and Kirsten Durst [Spider-Man 2] give very good performances, as do Rabe and Hall, and Frank Langella [Diary of a Mad Housewife] nearly walks off with the movie in one of his best roles. But while All Good Things holds the attention, it is also a bit obvious and stilted, and probably not as fascinating nor entertaining as true-crime shows that have focused on Durst, such as Dateline. Jumping back and forth in time only makes the picture confusing at times.

Verdict: Acceptable crime drama but nothing special. **1/2.

SPIDER-MAN 2

SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004). Director: Sam Raimi.

The sequel to Spider-Man is superior to the first film, being made of equal parts action and sentiment, and with – believe it or not -- a subtext of personal responsibility vs. freedom of choice. When Peter Parker realizes that his dual role as Spider-Man is playing havoc with his life (especially his love life) he gets rid of the uniform and vows never to play hero again. [This happened more than once in the comic books, usually at a time of great angst and disappointment, if not worse, for our hero.] His powers, especially his ability to create webs to swing around on [in the comics he uses a device to create webs; it is not an organic power], cuts out on him at inopportune moments due to his mixed emotions over being Spider-Man. Spider-Man recognizes that sometimes “you have to give up your dream” to do the right thing and sets out to fully regain his spider-like abilities. The climax is a thrilling all-out battle between Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus (an excellent Alfred Molina) that features an eye-popping, harrowing conflict on a runaway elevated subway train. The film even manages to be moving at times (the music doesn't hurt), although to many viewers it may only seem on a sappy, Hallmark greeting card level. The screenplay has its dopey and outrageously contrived moments. Determined not to be a hero, Peter walks by an alley where several toughs are beating up one man, and, while troubled, keeps on walking. Surely it's possible for him to come to someone's rescue without dressing up in an ostentatious outfit! Later, he confesses to his Aunt May that he didn't bother to stop the criminal who later murdered her husband. Surely his aunt, who is unaware of his Spider-Man powers, would have told him that if he'd tried to stop the man he would only have been shot just like his uncle was. Still, this is not quite as maddeningly juvenile or idiotic as many other super-hero films. In fact, it's quite entertaining, although certainly not for everyone. The FX are generally excellent and exciting, although there are times when Spider-Man just seems to be an unreal cartoon figure hurtling through the sky. Tobey Maguire (Peter/Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), and James Franco (Norm Osborne Jr.) are all quite good, as is the rest of the supporting cast.

Verdict: Web-swingin' fun. ***1/2.