Spoiler alert for those who haven’t seen the movie: I discuss the plot here.
—–
In his phenomenal interpretation of the Bible, Asimov talks about the story of Cain and Abel in a new light. He sees Abel, the brother who brings the sheep for sacrifice as the symbol of nomads, and Cain, the one with wheat, as the symbol of farming. When Cain kills Abel, he interprets it as the new form of life, which is settling in one place destroying the previous form, which is the nomad life. Sibling rivalries abound in literature and mythology. Remus and Romulus, Brothers Karamazov, Steinbeck’s East of Eden, the list goes on.
When I started watching the Power of the Dog, that’s where I thought the movie was going. A sibling rivalry between two brothers, one rancher and one college graduate. I first thought it was going in the Cain and Abel direction: that the story portrays the end of the pioneer style of life and the change in society towards modern life. At some point in the movie, there’s a silhouette of the famous James Earl Fraser End of the Trail statue (though the timing doesn’t match), which added to my suspicion. However, as the movie continues, it becomes apparent that what is dominant is the rancher brother’s strong and complicated personality, and his grip over all who surround him. In an extreme effort to cover his own homosexuality, he harbors toxic masculinity and utilizes all tools of machismo to cover his true self. He goes so far as to not even shower and castrate cattle with his bare hands.
Phil uses the insecurities of others to make them question themselves. When Rose wants to practice piano to make her husband proud, he makes sure that his banjo interferes with Rose’s piano practice. When Peter expresses himself by making paper flowers, he uses them to light his cigarette. When George does absolutely nothing, he is still haunted by the image of “fatso”. Phil creates an atmosphere so toxic that those around him cannot live their normal lives. The air is heavy to breathe the entire time for everyone but Phil, and his demise comes when he loosens his grip for a fraction of a second and allows Peter to play his hand and rid the world of Phil and “delivers his darlings from the power of the dog” as the Bible verse goes.
Jane Campion’s work in portraying Phil’s personality is astonishing. She does say in interviews that the character went back to her again and again until she decided to make the movie. I was surprised that the movie received a 6.9 on IMDB. I was expecting a higher score, potentially closer to mid-7s. Benedict Cumberbatch certainly stretches his acting skills to replace the modern London man with a 1925 Montana rancher, and Jesse Plemons shows what a long way he has come since his Todd Alquist days in Breaking Bad. Kirsten Dunst and Kodi Smith-McPhee are also immersed in their roles. The one problem with the movie, which may explain the lower IMDB score, is the fact that the heavy atmosphere that Phil creates permeates through the screen and impacts the viewer. For some, that atmosphere could ruin a Saturday evening. For all others, it is a great movie.
