The Power of the Dog (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

I don't disagree with your analysis Reggie although I thought the ending was ok. I liked the performances but didn't care enough about the characters to worry about whether everyone got the ending they deserved.

Sure, I understand that. The thing is, I think, we are not supposed to actually like any of these characters. They are not great people really.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Phil is basically an A-hole. His brother George seems a nice guy but is a bit odd and a side character that gets what he wants when he marries Rose. Rose is a drunk. Peter is a murderer. It is not a great bunch and I think less than caring for them we are meant to think about what takes place and how we view that. It's a bit of colder approach in a lot of ways because there are basically reasons not to warm to these characters. Kind of a Kubrick approach to them.

 

[Keith Cobby]

One of the mysteries for me was while Phil worked and acted as a senior ranch hand, George didn't do any work!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

One of the mysteries for me was while Phil worked and acted as a senior ranch hand, George didn't do any work!

Well, Phil liked doing the cowboy stuff and being smelly, he said so. George probably did the books, took care of financials and bathed indoors as well as more often.

 

[bujaki]

Rose hated alcohol since her husband succumbed to it. She took it up as an escape from Phil's hatred. Her son realized that and took action to save her, liberate George and salvage the marriage. Happy ending.
No tears to shed.

 

[SamT]

No I did not understand that Phil was murdered by Peter. I learned it here. In that case the music is appropriate!

No I don't mean we should be spoon-fed but there should be some food in front of us. So again, since I did not get that major plot point, the movie had no meaning to me. I think they should have made clear that major point.

I enjoy Terrence Malick movies. I enjoy The Tree of Life (2011). But I can't explain it. This movie did not work for me.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

No I did not understand that Phil was murdered by Peter. I learned it here. In that case the music is appropriate!

OK, so that makes sense because while the film shows this it does the following:

Spoiler: SPOILER

When we see Peter ride off on his horse and find the dead cow, really at this stage on our first watch we don't know what he is doing. We did see him dissecting a rabbit earlier so it probably looks like just a continuation of his fascination with cutting up dead animals to study.

We then get to the point where Phil freaks out because Peter's mom gave away the hides. This greatly upsets Phil, we don't know why really but it turns out Phil wants to make a rope for Peter. The rope really representing his feelings for Peter.

Then we see Phil and Peter in the barn while Phil works at making the rope. Here Phill and Peter get as intimate as they are going to get. They have a conversation about Bronco Henry. Phil brings up the sleeping bag story and Peter, quite intentionally because he knows it is what Phil wants, asks if they were naked together in the sleeping bag. Peter also, seductively, gives Phil a drag off of the cigarette.

It is basically here that we are shown the power shift. Phil is not the dangerous menace, Peter now holds Phil in the palm of his hand. He makes the comment about being naked, gives Phil a drag off the cigarette and Phil is now lost to his fantasy that he and Peter will be together. As he is doing all this we get a shot of Peter's face and we probably do not yet understand as Peter is doing all this he is sitting there watching Phil working with the poisoned hides with his cut hand.

He knows he has killed Phil and he is cruelly teasing him with the potential of a future where they might be naked in a sleeping bag together. Then the film is suddenly showing Phil is sick. Then being taken to the doctor by George. Then we are suddenly at the funeral. So, this is a quick series of events that I can see being confusing. At the funeral we hear a guy mention anthrax to George.

So, we do have to sort of assemble what has happened after being shown the things above. It is not perfectly spelled out but it is all there. We just are led down a path to think Phil is a dangerous menace while the whole time it is Peter that is plotting Phil's death.

I think the film is intentionally deceptive and so can be confusing but I do think all the parts are there for us to put together what happened.

 

[Tino]

I hope the wonderful Kirsten Dunst wins the AA.

While I though Dunst was great, she will most certainly lose to Ariana DeBose from West Side Story, who was tremendous.

 

[cinemiracle]

No I did not understand that Phil was murdered by Peter. I learned it here. In that case the music is appropriate!

No I don't mean we should be spoon-fed but there should be some food in front of us. So again, since I did not get that major plot point, the movie had no meaning to me. I think they should have made clear that major point.

I enjoy Terrence Malick movies. I enjoy The Tree of Life (2011). But I can't explain it. This movie did not work for me.

The movie did have a plot and a most moving one at that . It also did have a meaning for me. Deep and emotional .There was no reason for the Director/writer to explain everything-that was left up to the viewer. It's a film that makes you think long after you have left the cinema. Few films have ever have such an effect on me. Not surprising that it won 161 awards so far. Oscars will bump up that total. After 3 viewings so far, It was my favourite film seen in many a year and a flawless masterpiece. Thank you Jane Campion, you are a Champion.

 

[cinemiracle]

I'm getting frustrated with the so called open endings and different interpretations with the excuse of art. Yes open endings and different interpretations are great to a certain degree but not to this degree. It's like the filmmaker is showing a wall and saying very good and important stuff is happening behind this wall....Now give me my Oscar.

What a movie should do? Make you feel things, get upset, cry... in real time. I think a filmmaker should decide what a story is and tell it and show it on screen in a way you understand and feel it. Not to discover it later on paper.

I disagree with you but I can see your point. I didn't need to read about the plot on paper afterwards. It was all up there on the screen.

 

[cinemiracle]

I know you said before that you had an interpretation of the film but I don't think you have said what it was yet. So, I've been curious to hear your take, can you tell us what it was in spoilers if you think it would spoil it for some. I've seen it, discussed my take on it here, not sure if it is the same as yours as I don't think you have said what it was you thought.

I haven't said what my interpretation was on this forum, even as a spoiler. That would cause people not having seen the film, to read my views beforehand. I assume that most readers always look at the spoilers anyway. I only emailed it to a friend who had seen the film and he was very close to having the same interpretation as I did.

 

[usrunnr]

Any chance of a blu-ray disc for this?

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Any chance of a blu-ray disc for this?

Judging from previous Netflix releases, only if it becomes a Criterion issue, like The Irishman, but I may be wrong.

 

[Malcolm R]

Depends on who owns the actual film. Netflix seems to be a distributor more than a production partner, so they may just have an exclusive window. Seems like it may eventually come out in some territory, somewhere, likely after a year or so.

 

[cinemiracle]

Congratulations to Benedict Cumberbatch for getting as star on Hollywood Bvd

 

[dpippel]

Depends on who owns the actual film. Netflix seems to be a distributor more than a production partner, so they may just have an exclusive window. Seems like it may eventually come out in some territory, somewhere, likely after a year or so.

I thought that Netflix was funding many of these "exclusive" films and shows. Wouldn't that make them a production partner?

 

[Malcolm R]

I thought that Netflix was funding many of these "exclusive" films and shows. Wouldn't that make them a production partner?

Not necessarily. The streamers like to use the "exclusive" label on anything they have rights to , whether it's one of their original films or one they've purchased for streaming from other producers/studios. I don't think they're purchasing the films themselves, just the streaming rights and the "world premiere" status.

Many of the films Paramount "sold" to streamers are coming out on home video after a year. They must be retaining the ownership of the films and just selling an "exclusive streaming window" of a year. Below are the owners and distributors for the film:

It seems to be a local Australia/New Zealand production, with assistance from BBC Film and others, but I don't know that Netflix owns any rights other than as an exclusive streaming event.

 

[Matt Hough]

Jane Campion won the DGA award for Best Feature Direction last night.

 

[Tino]

Jane Campion won the DGA award for Best Feature Direction last night.

Definitely bodes well for Campion and the film. However I think CODA might pull an upset for BP.

 

[Matt Hough]

Definitely bodes well for Campion and the film. However I think CODA might pull an upset for BP.

I agree with you. I still agree even though The Power of the Dog won the BAFTA for Best Film and Best Director today.

 

[Tino]

.edit. Nevermind.