Review By Alan Champion
“BAD, DOG…”
(1925, MONTANA)
“One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light,
but by making the darkness conscious.” ~ Carl Jung
Throughout the annals of gay cinema, audiences have been bombarded/inundated by one-dimensional narratives – that readily remind them that any deviancy from heterosexuality will be gravely disadvantageous – engineered by film directors, whose “misbranded,” gay characters, atoned/repented for their homosexuality and “perverse” vicissitudes, by enduring unwarranted, gratuitous punishment, by virtue of solitariness, mob homophobia, diseasedness, incarceration, psychiatric institutionalization, suicide, and/or meeting a hideous end. Their subliminal message was that any vitiation/contravention of heterosexuality would result in adversity and misfortune; in fact, that homosexuality was immoral, ungodly and an abomination. We’ve witnessed this unpardonable phenomenon, again and again, in films like:
THE MAN WITHOUT DESIRE (a pioneering film, made in 1923), FRIED GREEN TOMATOES, WE WERE ONE MAN, GIA, BEHIND THE CANDELABRA, MAURICE, FREE FALL, YOSSI & JAGGER, NIGHTHAWKS, GIRL, THEN WE DANCED, THE CAKEMAKER, THE NEW GIRLFRIEND, HENRY AND JUNE, KINKY BOOTS, HEIGHTS, QUERELLE, THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES, FACING WINDOWS, PINERA, LA MISSION, MAKING LOVE, NAZ & MAALIK, BLACKBIRD, TANGERINE, PARIAH, GUN HILL ROAD, BROTHER TO BROTHER, SET IT OFF, THE SKINNY, PARTING GLANCES, TEST, BURNT MONEY, CRUISING, POISON, THE HUNGER, BENT, LILLIES, OUT IN THE DARK, WEEKEND and THOSE WHO LOVE ME CAN TAKE THE TRAIN, and, in Oscar and foreign film awards contenders/winners, akin to: MIDNIGHT COWBOY, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMB, DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, THE IMITATION GAME, PHILADELPHIA, AMERICAN BEAUTY, MONSTER, ADVISE AND CONSENT, REVEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, A SPECIAL DAY, BOYS IN THE BAND, PAIN AND GLORY, THE DANISH GIRL, KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN, CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, BESSIE, PARIS IS BURNING, DEATH IN VENICE, WOMEN IN LOVE, VICTIM, MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDERETTE, EYES WIDE OPEN, THE CRYING GAME, GODS AND MONSTERS, SUNDAY, BLOODY SUNDAY, TEA AND SYMPATHY, SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, THE NUN’S STORY, MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, AN EARLY FROST, A ROOM WITH A VIEW, LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION!, LONG TIME COMPANION, PRECIOUS, FROM AFAR, EASTERN PROMISES, MILK, THE HOURS, BLACK SWAN, A SINGLE MAN, MONSTER and BROKE BACK MOUNTAIN, amongst numerous others.
At last, Jane Campion’s THE POWER OF THE DOG has come to the rescue, and recast this deep-rooted, dastardly phenomenon, with its fountainhead in Christianity and paranoia. A draconian film, it centers on four, eccentric/estranged characters – Phil Burbank, a diabolical, homophobe, landowner/rancher; his brother, George, a proprietor, and his new wife, Rose Gordon; and her adolescent son, Peter, whom one might think of as gay, ambidextrous or Metrosexual. Notwithstanding, all of these characters imbue damaged, tragic personifications/embodiments as derivations of their past vicissitudes, excepting Peter, who, like most teens is exploring and expressing his autonomy and independence.
Peter, whose contrastive, clashing and antipodean – unlike the his mother, Rose Gordon, stepfather, George Burbank or his rancorously malicious, step-uncle, Phil – lissomely faces the ensuing tumult of adolescence – rife in hormonal eruptions, peer pressure, and sexual awakenings/dissonance – by nimbly confronting these abysmal challenges, imperturbably, with awe, wonderment and ease as he ensuingly negotiates an eminent rites.
Notwithstanding, Phil, a dinosauric chauvinistic, homophobe, throws the first stone when he destroys Peter’s artificial floral arrangement as he awaits his dinner alongside his roguish cronies – but, what a miscalculation as he quickly discerns, albeit, too late, that “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Peter, who, bristles/seethes – agilely exploits the painful lessons he’s learned from his death-dealing vicissitudes and empiricism – takes a mental note, but, remains taciturn/deadpan, quietly removing himself from the viperous, pandemonium galvanized/spurred on by the xenophobic, Phil and his ghoulish posse. But, the pernicious dance of upmanship/death has begun, with the impenetrable, indecipherable, tight-lipped, poker-faced, man-child taking the upper hand in their beguiling, death-defying, “Dog-Eat-Dog” duel; yet, he bides his time until he’ll dislodge his arsenal/firearms to their greatest effect/impact…
But, uncle Phil has schemes of his own… He attempts to exploit his nephew’s dewy-eyed, gullibility, by placating/mollifying him to win him over, but, Peter, who is unusually percipient and foresightful for his age is conciliatory, but, wary.
Tables turn, when, Phil blithesomely tells his step-nephew about his relationship with Bronco Henry Williams, (a real man in those days), and how he mentored/taught him to ride – “He taught me to use my eyes in ways other people don’t…” – and, upon espying the contiguous hills, he tells/asks Peter, “When Bronco looked at it, what do you think he saw?” And to his astonishment, Peter’s responds, “A Barking Dog with its jaws wide open,” thus, mirroring Bronco Henry’s envisaging; but, at once, presaging an anticlimactic turn in events. An olden, sagacious spirit for his age – conceivably, a derivation of the unremittingly, scornful ridicule and taunting, he’s endured/undergone most of his life – Peter, adeptly plays along with Phil’s conniving and masquerade, counting the hours/days until he’ll countermand his death-dealing stratagem – ultimately, to manumit both himself and his mother of Phil’s nefarious grasp…
Although Campion intimates/hints at Phil’s detestation and unresolved conundrum over his closeted homosexuality when he tenderly fondles and strokes Bronco Henry’s satiny saddle, but, after Peter – who, astutely, senses his step-uncle Phil’s aversion, denial and refusal to acknowledge or swallow his bred-in-the-bone, identity and sexuality in order to conform/solidly, fit in as “heterosexual,” within the more advantaged cohort – unearths a camouflaged treasure chest, brimming over with homo-erotic books/magazines, in a furrow under a dense thicket, it is corroborated. Yet, Peter is caught in the act of snooping by Phil, who, ego, craftily, feigns his affections in order to muzzle him – schemes over ways to obliterate him. And, although Peter is, ostensibly, taken aback by his step-uncle Phil’s dodgy/unscrupulous display of fidelity, his inebriating/overwrought, mother remains frantically suspect.
The film culminates with a solemnly climactic scene, suggesting that uncle, Phil and Peter may have engaged in carnality, while, locked away in a barn; howbeit, the very next day, Phil is found immobilized/bedridden by his brother, George, and taken to the hospital, where he dies from anthrax poisoning. Notwithstanding, as Peter readies himself for his long-awaited return to medical school, he, unpityingly, fingers the rope, assiduously, crafted by Phil, and detachedly tosses it under his bed, contented that he’s bested him – the lowdown, dirty, “Dog of a Man – and extricated, himself and his kin of his contemptible, lambaste and castigation.
A stunning and astonishingly picturesque film, with cinematography, reminiscent of an Ansel Adams or Dorothea Lange photograph, Campion, whose editing style is lyrical/poetic, imbued with a lithe fluidity – buoys it with spellbinding, juxtapositions between nature’s untouched/unscathed, regality, serenity and immaculate beauty, opposed to the human turbulence, wreckage and massacre found on the ranch, nearby. A masterful adaptation of Thomas Savage’s 1983 mesmeric novel of the same title, if William Shakespeare were a neoteric filmmaker, his images, cinematography and mise en scene, would certainly parallel hers…
The entire leading cast – all Oscar nominees – are nothing short of captivating, stupefying and gripping. While, Benedict Cumberbatch and Kristen Dunst portrayals of Phil Burbank and Rose Gordon, respectively, as two damaged, self-loathing, entrapped people is nothing short of transfixing and hypnotic; the timorously cowardice conjured up/personified by Phil’s servile brother, George, portrayed by Jesse Plemons, is overarchingly credible and penetrating – of which, despite Phil’s bellicosity and resentment towards him, is never quite explained, but, to which, one might assume that, in spite of George’s vulnerabilities, Phil perceives him as the bona fide, “Man” he’s always hankered to be, but, could ne’er spawn; – but, it is Kodi Smit-McPhee as the frail, anorectic, Peter, who indubitably, more than steals the entire show – even when he’s not in frame, his hushful, plotting/conspiratorial presence is felt. An enigmatic, doe-eyed, Machiavellian, Kodi Smit-McPhee brings to his characterization/portrayal an unusual depth, intensity/interiority, subtlety and assuredness that goes far beyond his years. Surely, one of the most poignant, veristic portrayals of a gay youth beset by, and, in the throes of mob adversity and violence, its a wonder/oversight that he wasn’t nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Actor.” Yet, one can only foresee, epoch-making, dramaturgical thespianism from him in the future. The supporting cast are exemplary/scintillatingly, eye-catching, and, notably, augment/amplify the film’s principal figures’ prowess, artistry and perspicacious externalizations.
THE POWER OF THE DOG – wherein, toxic masculinity is as much a dominant character as its cast – is engrossingly mesmerizing and transcendent. Ms. Campion’s – an Oscar nominee for “Best Director” and “Best Writing Adapted Screenplay” – sensitivity, prowess as a filmmaker, foresightfulness and perspicacity moves cinema to yet another dimension – one, that will, buoyantly, and promisingly, inspire future directors to: recognize gays, their vicissitudes and amorous relationships as mainstream/standard; no longer feel constrained to portray gay characters as guilt-ridden, repentful or atoning for what society deems their “moral sins”; avoid erstwhile, chastisement and punishment of gay characters for daring to love other men, by having them ushered off to jail, savagely beaten or murdered; and, to script gay characters, as a cohort that glorifies and celebrates their sexuality, lifestyle and companions, freely and unreservedly. And, more essential/paramount, to acknowledge that the images they communicate/circulate, will influence and shape the attitudes and behaviors of future, gay and straight, generations.
A groundbreaking, epiphanic film, with twelve Oscar nominations, including “Best Picture,” THE POWER OF THE DOG will, certainly find its place in the pantheon of film for its barefaced, unshrinking premise/portrayal as well as its brazen audacity, candor and thrust; but, even more importantly, it’ll serve as an exemplar/benchmark for any gay person – youthful or elderly – in commandeering their lives; interdicting intolerance; and, in claiming and immortalizing their selfhood and individualism.
Rating: 5/5