MovieChat Forums > The Power of the Dog (2021) Discussion > Good film, bad director where it counts

Good film, bad director where it counts

posted 3 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
21 replies | jump to latest

This is a good movie building up, but it fails in its key moment.
SPOILERS

There should have been a CEAR explanation of how Phil was killed.
It is the pivotal moment in the story yet is handled cryptically.
I had to come here to read that the kid gave him the rawhide of a cow that died of anthrax, and Phil had just cut his hand so he would get poisoned. How convenient.
Wtf.
They could have shown it much better, like Peter using gloves to give Phil the hides, or carefully handling the contaminated cow to get the hides for his studies, him intentionally causing the cut on Phil's hand, or whatever, him reading about anthrax in his med books at least.
We only get a shot of the kid handling the finished rope with gloves after Phil is buried. Not even rubber gloves, no, cowboy gloves. It is so unclear I thought it meant that Peter wanted to become a cowboy like Phil now, following his footsteps.

The whole sequence is handled poorly and is not understandable just by watching the images.
You need to know the story from the book to get it.

Shitty directing, that is what this was.

[–] [email protected] (1357) 3 years ago

The movie was so bland in my opinion. It could have been great but they never delved into anything thoroughly.. Two hours I wont get back.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

Well there is a lot of subtext being built, I liked that.
But it all culminates in this final sequence, which should have been clear and longer and have more impact on the previous 2h. Instead it is confusing and too matter of fact y.
As if they did not care about the whole point of the movie afterall.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

They did care about the movie and its messaging...

You have to pay close attention to what was happening, though.

You saw Peter go up into the mountains to find the diseased cow -- he skins it. They leave it there. You don't know what he does with it but you know he has it and that it has anthrax.

We know that Phil likes to rope hides, and after he finds out Peter discovered his secret stash of gay porn, he decides he's going to take Peter under his wing. So Phil calls out Peter and tries to be nice to him by telling him he will teach him how to rope hide.

Peter and Phil start to bond by spending more time together; Phil cuts his hand while they were chasing the rabbit.

When Phil got angry at Rose for Rose giving her hides to the Native Americans, and Peter saw that Phil was NOT going to back down, Peter decided to step in... that's when he touched him and told him that he had a hide. At that point, Peter had already decided Phil had to go.

Remember what Peter said at the beginning of the film? It was his job to protect his mother (and that included her happiness, too).

Peter brought Phil the anthrax-ridden hide because he knew Phil had a cut on his hand. When Phil was washing the hide in the water the camera purposely zoomed in on Phil's bloody hand in the water with the anthrax-ridden hide. This is a callback from earlier in the film where they mentioned that they don't handle diseased cows.

Cut to the next scene and Phil is bed ridden. Shortly thereafter he dies.

If you pay attention to what the doc tells George, he says he had a miserable last few days and it was likely due to anthrax. George specifically tells the doctor that Phil was always cautious NOT to handle diseased animals; the only diseased animal Phil came in contact with was the anthrax-ridden hide Peter gave him.

At the very end we see Peter smiling, with gloves on, putting the anthrax-ridden rope under the bed and seeing his mother and George happy together. It all comes full circle.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

Yes I know that if you play detective you can put it all together.
Why should I be forced to do so?
Is there a point for making it so unclear and disjointed?
Since I cannot see any reason to choose to make it confusing, I chalk it up to bad camera directing, not knowing what to stress when, to
clearly communicate what happens.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Why should I be forced to do so?
Is there a point for making it so unclear and disjointed?

You're actually right... this was just the director's way of making someone opaque enough that it forces people to look around the direct plot line to figure out what was going on. It helps to appeal to award-givers by making the film seem "deeper" and more "complex" than it actually is.

Since I cannot see any reason to choose to make it confusing, I chalk it up to bad camera directing, not knowing what to stress when, to
clearly communicate what happens.

Well so much of the rest of the film (especially the second half) was so focused on the homoerotic subtext that she forgot that clear and direct storytelling is still necessary for normal moviegoers.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

I agree on both points.
Too bad, it is a good movie, could have been great.

[–] [email protected] (1357) 3 years ago

I agree whole hardheartedly. Life is tough enough. I dont need more work lol

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

I like puzzle games and having to figure out what happend.
That does not fit this film, nor it seems intentional.
Simply Champion fucked up with the subtlety, making it unnecessary confusing for anybody that has not read the book.

[–] GuyHaines (240) 3 years ago

It sounds like you were too busy drawing with crayons to pay attention to the film.

That’s hardly Jane Campion’s fault.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

Nope, I was watching it with no distractions of any sort.
If a movie has a DETAIL that is IMPORTANT, it's the director's job to make sure that such detail is not missed in the other 2 hours of images.
Solely her fault.

[–] msenjur (22) 3 years ago

spoilers ahead!

i have to disagree.

i like movies, where you have to observe every detail. in is on purpuse to be recoreded that way.

otherwise, it would be just another 6,5 movie.

if you didnt get all the details, im sorry, but that doesnt make a movie bad.

btw. i connected the dots before that doctor mention antrax. that shot with hands in water tells everything. it is actually a big surprise, because i thought they were friends... i expected some gayish connection between them two. i didnt expect him to murder him.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

Yeah, sure, we know you are Sherlock.

Well, think about this: would you feel so smart if this was not so cryptic to begin with?

My problem is, there is no need here in this film to be unclear or to confuse the viewers. This is not Poirot.
I doubt it is the intention of the director either. She just was clumsy with a few important shots.

[–] letess (1542) 3 years ago

I saw it and got it. It wasn’t difficult. You knew something was going to happen when he saw his mother suffer so and almost overnight become an alcoholic. You knew Phil was the classical bully of a western. And you knew the kid wasn’t faint hearted when he dissected the rabbit. You knew something had to happen to save his mother. She’s the person he loved most. There was a lot of time devoted to the hides so there was a purpose for that. It’s all there. It’s also in the title. Director is great. The Piano is one of my favorite movies.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

Director is great.
She still fucked this up.

Like I said, what was the need to be obscure and generate confusion?

[–] letess (1542) 3 years ago

It was thoughtful and understated and when I saw it I thought what a master play by the kid. But, I am confused at the confusion. It is all there just like the ending of Usual Suspects which might have been more complicated but still it is all there.
I have a feeling this movie will get the Oscar and she will get it for best director.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

1 Oscars = shit
2 The Usual Suspects makes damn sure to communicate clearly that revelation. I doubt somebody ever walked out of that film not understanding who Soze is and that he told us a bunch of lies.
3 The confusion in TPOTD is there.
It actually is so clumsily executed that, after Phil dies (off screen, just to add more unneeded mystery) his brother has to explain us that he thinks he died of anthrax.
Way to show, not tell.
What a GOOD director should have done, is either clearly foreshadow Peter's knowledge and plan, or clearly reveal what he did after the murder.
We see him with that fucking rope at the end (good shot), yet we NEVER get a clear shot of that being the murder weapon before nor after.

[–] letess (1542) 3 years ago

This movie is perfect the way it is. I understand the novel is better. I liked The Piano better, but Campion did a good job.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 3 years ago

I do not think being confusing or needing an external source or repeat viewing to fully understand is part of its intended goals, so this is not perfect at all.

[–] com (30) 2 years ago

Agree, and that's not the only thing the director dropped the ball on, this movie could've been good. Almost nothing in it was believable. Is it supposed to be the viewers job to fill in all the missing pieces to get the full story that's good and makes sense. Yeah sure I can understand what happened, but it wasn't shown why or how, the point of a good movie is to show it in such a way that you feel it, not force you to make the movie yourself in your mind to fill in all the gaps and finish it. I haven't read the book, but from what I read about it, it seems like a much better and complete story, this movie completely screwed it up.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 2 years ago

Yes, it has many flaws, some of which are problematic.
I did not mind some of them, but the director dropping the ball on the pivotal moment is unacceptable.

[–] Miffed (34) a year ago

I didn't find the movie confusing. It just kept me curious as what is going to happen next. And the end answers it all. When the doctor says he died of Antrax, and then Peter kind of smiles, says it all. It was something I didn't expect, as I thought Phil was evil and conjuring something all the while. I wouldn't watch the movie again. Okay for a one time to figure out the suspense.