The Power of the Dog

This movie, a dramatisation of a novel by Thomas Savage, is already receiving a number of award nominations. For me it's an art film, by which I mean that it's more than just a visual narrative; it embraces various art forms. From amazing Montana landscapes to a modernistic score performed by what seems to be a string quartet with occasional piano, with authentic 1930s paraphernalia such as motor cars, clearly numbered acts and a very wide screen, the movie begins with an impressive cattle drive which defines the central location of the story.

The title is taken from Psalm 22:20: “Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog.” Director Jane Campion (of Top of the Lake) has said "The power of the dog is all those urges, all those deep, uncontrollable urges that can come and destroy us". It also felt to me to have a sense of the "black dog" of depression.

I mulled over how much to tell of the whole story or to avoid spoilers for you. I have tried to follow a middle path, to tell enough to encourage you to watch the movie but not to make it a fruitless exercise. I might not succeed so you may want to watch it before reading further.

Phil and George Burbank own a ranch and the film centres on their relationship. They are shown as very different siblings; Phil is the practical, physical rancher and George the manager. They don't really much like each other. Both are lonely but deal with that differently: Phil relishes being on his own whereas George seeks to alleviate his loneliness by marrying local inn owner Rose, whom Phil takes an instant dislike to and calls a "suicide widow". There's a scene where George says to Rose "how nice it is not to be alone". Rose has a son Peter who is mocked by Phil and the ranch hands for his effeminate ways.

These are the four characters whose journeys we follow. There are hidden depths to Phil and Peter; eventually Phil comes to see great worth in the young boy and helps him develop ranchers' skills, particularly when he discovers that Peter saw his father hang himself and now his mother is deteriorating into alcoholism. Peter responds, growing surprisingly self confident and determined.

George and Rose are frankly less interesting and become peripheral to the narrative.

Phil himself has hidden depths. In one scene the Governor, visiting the ranch, reveals Phil was "Phi Beta Kappa in Classics at Yale". This is my main reservation about the film: none of Phil's background is explored or explained - how did this educated and cultured man end up as a cattle herder? - and I wanted there to be more to this character, less of it hidden. He helps Peter to grow but doesn't do so himself.

In Top of the Lake, Campion has a clear feminine focus, so strong that "men are bad, women good" pretty much sums up the theme. Here she hints at effeminate male sexuality with some homoerotic scenes and suggestions - but no more than that, it's subtle suggestion, nothing more. I'm not sure it adds anything to the film but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a second reservation for me.

My final issue is that the strong, wide visuals and excellent musical score really mean that I wished I had seen it in the cinema to get the full experience. This may be a reservation about my TV rather than the film. Overall I believe this a worthwhile film, it's pace is near perfect, the acting is excellent and the characters well-defined and well contrasted. If you watch it, let me know whether your thoughts are different from mine.

More Movie Notes

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is an entertaining dramatisation of the events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Protesters attempted to storm the convention centre to protest the Vietnam War and, in particular, Hubert Humphrey's apparent support for - or at least non-opposition to - the war. Those on trial in September 1969 were prominent activists and, although they were all accused of conspiracy, they were mostly unconnected and just met in the protests. There were originally eight defendants but one, Bobby Seale the co-leader of the Black Panthers, was eventually separated from the others - in the movie by a declaration of mistrial after several highly amusing altercations between Seale and the judge.

Aaron Sorkin paints each of the defendants in bright dramatic colours: Sasha Baron Cohen is a highly intelligent but crazy Abbie Hoffman, Jeremy Strong (aka Kendall Roy in Succession) is Jerry Rubin; they are founding members of the Youth International Party, known as Yippies, dedicated to revolution. They engage in student level stunts, constantly disrupting the trial and arguing that it's a political trial. In contrast Eddie Redmayne is the straight man of the group, a teacher and co-founder of Students for a Democratic Society, who argues for a non-violent, non-confrontational presentation of their defence, a stance which lessens as Frank Langella's Judge Hoffman behaves increasingly erratically and antagonistically towards them.

Mark Rylance does his droll thing as their lawyer and the film is well worth a watch, particularly for fans of Sorkin's writing. The energy never fades and there is a typical Sorkin set piece speech to round it all off.

Inside Man is a heist movie from 2006, mostly straightforward in its use of a hostage negotiator (Denzil Washington) and his interaction with the leader of the robbers (Clive Owen). There's a sub-plot involving Jodie Foster and Christoper Plummer which feels contrived but turns out to be a  crucial part of the plot. So far so ordinary. What intrigued me, however, were the tactical devices used by the robbers.

There is a clever robber leader, who has thought of all possibilities and tactics, one of which is to have the hostages wear clothing and face masks identical to those of the robbers, so as to allow the robbers to escape by exiting with the hostages. Sound familiar? If you've seen Money Heist, it will be. No Dali masks here but otherwise it's a rip-off. Feels like obvious plagiarism which, given this film is from 2006 and Money Heist from 2017, makes me a little less enthralled by the latter. There's even a common musical device: We know that Money Heist uses Bella Ciao as a kind of leitmotif; Inside Man does a similar thing with the Bollywood love song Chaiyya Chaiyya, the latter making no sense whereas Bella Ciao at least represents anti-capitalist protest. Putting aside the disturbing plagiarism, I would class this movie as a mildly entertaining and undemanding couple of hours' watch. 

Fracture pits Anthony Hopkins against Ryan Gosling in a courtroom drama. I guess you couldn't find two actors more unalike in terms of their usual roles. Hopkins, in Hannibal Lecter mood, is some kind of super-genius engineer who discovers his wife is having an affair with a police detective. He's clever enough to plot out the perfect crime, shoots her and confesses. Gosling plays a laconic, smug La La Land Assistant District Attorney who is plotting a lucrative move to the private sector but has time before that happens to take on this final "open and shut" case, given the confession. Things don't turn out quite like that, as you may guess, and he is eventually intrigued by the challenge of taking down his clever antagonist.

There's a strong musical element in the film. On occasions - particularly in the opening seven minute sequence with no dialogue - it feels like a symphonic exposition. Sometimes a bit distracting. There are clever references to the movie's title in the opening titles  

but it's not at all clear to me what Fracture means in the context of the plot. Overall it's the kind of film which depends on excellent chemistry between the two leads and they provide that. A good thriller.

Above Suspicion is a crime thriller set in a run-down Kentucky town and based on a true story. The dark local culture contrasts with the arrival of a clean cut rookie FBI agent and he recruits a local young unmarried mother, desperate to escape her past and present circumstances, as an informer. It is fairly mundane but does have Emilia Clarke (aka the Mother of Dragons) in a gritty role.

Four movies in four days? I know, but there was a distinct lack of TV football. 

Oscar winning movies and those that should have won

I watched Moonlight (best picture 2017) last night. I enjoyed it except that I had a struggle some of the time to hear the dialogue. A sign of my advancing years rather than a flaw in the film. It was a film that made me feel uncomfortable, at different moments for different reasons, but is a worthwhile exploration of a young man growing up and his various relationships. But it ultimately left me with an impression of lifelong sadness, so it was hard for me to find positives for the character. Not a feel-good film, unlike the film it beat for the Oscar, La La Land. Other beaten films of that year I haven't seen but it seems a weak year to me.

The previous year, 2016, seems to have contained a stronger field. Non-winners (I can't really think of them as losers) include the hugely enjoyable Mad Max: Fury Road, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies and The Martian. The winner was Spotlight but the best, in my opinion, was Brie Larson in Room (she got Best Actress).

2015 had two biographical films, The Imitation Game about Alan Turing and The Theory of Everything with Eddie Redmayne (of whom normally I'm not much of a fan) as Stephen Hawking. Clint Eastwood directed American Sniper and I thought Selma, about the US Civil Rights movement and starring David Oleyowo as Martin Luther King, was perhaps the best of those. The winner was Birdman, which I haven't seen, which I something I may remedy soon.

2014 was a stellar year for me. The outstanding 12 Years a Slave won the Oscar, but the runners-up list includes an excellent batch including Dallas Buyers Club (which I would probably have chosen), American Hustle (a fun A List romp), Gravity, the tense Captain Phillips and one of Leonardo DiCaprio's best roles, The Wolf Of Wall Street.

2013 had one of my favourite softie rom-coms, Silver Linings Playbook, Tarantino's tough Django Unchained, Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, Kathryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (which I would make no. 2) and my no. 1, Beasts of The Southern Wild. For me it's a wonderful movie. And of course, in front of all these excellent offerings, the winner was the worst of them all and possibly the worst Oscar winner ever, Argo. Ugh.

Skip over 2012 and the dreary films such as The Artist, War Horse and The Tree Of life, and move back one final year to 2011, which had one of my favourite films of recent years - Winter's Bone. If you haven't seen it, do so! But it was listed in a truly exceptional year in which The King's Speech won and included Toy Story 3, The Social Network, Black Swan, Inception, 127 Hours, The Fighter and True Grit. One of the best years ever?

I could go on and on but I won't. You'll have noticed I skipped the latest three years. I haven't seen many of the nominations, partly because of my local cinema's dispute with one of the distributors so certain films never arrive in St Austell. But here are brief observations:

2018: The excellent Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri beaten by The Shape Of Water, a film in which a mute cleaner falls in love with a humanoid amphibian; mm.

2019: Olivia Colman wins Best Actress in the very entertaining The Favourite but is beaten by Green Book (which I have downloaded ready to watch) for Best Picture. [11pm] I watched Green Book tonight, discovered after about 2 minutes I had seen it, but it's good enough to watch again, so I did. Highly recommended.

2020: I enjoyed Little Women and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, thought 1917 was one-dimensional and haven't yet seen Parasite, the winner.

Share your opinions in the Comments!