info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THE POWER OF THE DOG (Netflix)
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Anderson
Dec 18, 2021, 9:03:49 AM12/18/21
to
I had learned more than I should have about the story and actually
feared I wouldn't like the movie. In fact, I didn't at first, but I'm
glad I stuck with it last night. I'm still pondering it this morning.
It's 1925 Montana (filmed in New Zealand) and a widow runs a boarding
house with her early twenties son who's clearly not the masculine type.
She marries a very nice and very wealthy rancher (Landry from Friday
Night Lights) who shares a prairie mansion he's inherited along with his
equally wealthy and much less nice brother (Sherlock from Sherlock). And
then a story plays out.
The film is beautiful; the gorgeousness practically overwhelms at times.
I want to ride to the ranch in a Model T, spend weeks in that home,
sleep in a feather bed, dine on their food, take a dip in that stream,
breathe the pristine air flavored with the scent of that corral. The
movie didn't just make it all look real, but it took me there, made me
feel I was present. This film is a lock to get the AA for cinematography
-- I have spoken.
I wouldn't say there are holes in the plot exactly. I mean it's not like
some things contradict other things. It's more that there are gaps in
the story, some pretty major, that the viewer is left to fill in on his
own. The arc of the story is easy to follow, but little things -- how
did he know to go there, why burn things of value, what's the deal with
mom and pop -- the movie just doesn't say. I think. Maybe I missed
something, but I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. Still, the gaps
didn't really impact my overall enjoyment of the movie.
It's beautiful, it's smart and I felt rewarded. Have a look.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
feared I wouldn't like the movie. In fact, I didn't at first, but I'm
glad I stuck with it last night. I'm still pondering it this morning.
It's 1925 Montana (filmed in New Zealand) and a widow runs a boarding
house with her early twenties son who's clearly not the masculine type.
She marries a very nice and very wealthy rancher (Landry from Friday
Night Lights) who shares a prairie mansion he's inherited along with his
equally wealthy and much less nice brother (Sherlock from Sherlock). And
then a story plays out.
The film is beautiful; the gorgeousness practically overwhelms at times.
I want to ride to the ranch in a Model T, spend weeks in that home,
sleep in a feather bed, dine on their food, take a dip in that stream,
breathe the pristine air flavored with the scent of that corral. The
movie didn't just make it all look real, but it took me there, made me
feel I was present. This film is a lock to get the AA for cinematography
-- I have spoken.
I wouldn't say there are holes in the plot exactly. I mean it's not like
some things contradict other things. It's more that there are gaps in
the story, some pretty major, that the viewer is left to fill in on his
own. The arc of the story is easy to follow, but little things -- how
did he know to go there, why burn things of value, what's the deal with
mom and pop -- the movie just doesn't say. I think. Maybe I missed
something, but I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. Still, the gaps
didn't really impact my overall enjoyment of the movie.
It's beautiful, it's smart and I felt rewarded. Have a look.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
william ahearn
Dec 18, 2021, 2:41:23 PM12/18/21
to
On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, Bill Anderson wrote:
> I had learned more than I should have about the story and actually
> feared I wouldn't like the movie. In fact, I didn't at first, but I'm
> glad I stuck with it last night. I'm still pondering it this morning.
>
I started it and then bailed. Jane Campion is not a go-to director for me. Maybe I'll give it another shot.
> I had learned more than I should have about the story and actually
> feared I wouldn't like the movie. In fact, I didn't at first, but I'm
> glad I stuck with it last night. I'm still pondering it this morning.
>
trotsky
Dec 18, 2021, 3:20:05 PM12/18/21
to
you're unable to watch first time directors? Are you trolling to be
told you're cheesy as fuck?
Jim Bozley
Dec 21, 2021, 2:19:03 PM12/21/21
to
On Saturday, 18 December 2021 at 09:03:49 UTC-5, Bill Anderson wrote:
> I wouldn't say there are holes in the plot exactly. I mean it's not like
> some things contradict other things. It's more that there are gaps in
> the story, some pretty major, that the viewer is left to fill in on his
> own.
Haven't seen "Dog" yet, but generally I really like that in movies.
> I wouldn't say there are holes in the plot exactly. I mean it's not like
> some things contradict other things. It's more that there are gaps in
> the story, some pretty major, that the viewer is left to fill in on his
> own.
william ahearn
Dec 21, 2021, 9:20:45 PM12/21/21
to
On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't say there are holes in the plot exactly. I mean it's not like
> some things contradict other things. It's more that there are gaps in
> the story, some pretty major, that the viewer is left to fill in on his
> own. The arc of the story is easy to follow, but little things -- how
> did he know to go there, why burn things of value, what's the deal with
> mom and pop -- the movie just doesn't say. I think. Maybe I missed
> something, but I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. Still, the gaps
> didn't really impact my overall enjoyment of the movie.
>
> It's beautiful, it's smart and I felt rewarded. Have a look.
>
I agree with a lot of what you wrote but I came away thinking I should be wearing a Tennessee Williams Dude Ranch T-shirt. The submerged manliness, the ghost howling through the friendships, the symbolism of the mountain view, the alcoholic wife, and etc and etc.
> some things contradict other things. It's more that there are gaps in
> the story, some pretty major, that the viewer is left to fill in on his
> own. The arc of the story is easy to follow, but little things -- how
> did he know to go there, why burn things of value, what's the deal with
> mom and pop -- the movie just doesn't say. I think. Maybe I missed
> something, but I'm pretty sure I was paying attention. Still, the gaps
> didn't really impact my overall enjoyment of the movie.
>
> It's beautiful, it's smart and I felt rewarded. Have a look.
>
tomcervo
Dec 24, 2021, 12:33:56 PM12/24/21
to
william ahearn
Dec 24, 2021, 6:17:36 PM12/24/21
to
moviePig
Dec 24, 2021, 11:46:45 PM12/24/21
to
Bill Anderson
Aug 28, 2022, 2:55:29 PM8/28/22
to
did) and partly in hopes it would explain some things (it did.).
The book's prose is as gorgeous as the film's cinematography. The
author, Thomas Savage, grew up wealthy in Montana, living on ranches
like the one in the movie. His prose descriptions of the mountains, the
prairie grasses, the clean air, the smells, the animals...are like
poetry and just as descriptive as the movie's magnificent cinematography.
The old folks left the ranch because they couldn't stand living with
their son Phil.
Phil befriended the kid only to hurt the mother, but maybe it's hinted
sorta maybe he was getting other ideas before he died.
The kid had been told the hills were full of carcasses of cattle that
died of anthrax and he just kept looking until he found one.
Phil burned the hides because he couldn't stand the thought of traveling
Jews buying them up and selling them at a profit. Having Rose sell them
was really a plot device to allow the kid to offer Phil some other
rawhide to finish the rope. He said he'd acquired it so he could learn
to braid a rope like Phil.
The book is far more oblique than the movie about Phil's suppressed
homosexuality. According to Annie Proulx in an updated afterward to the
book, she was approached by Jane Campion and her producer to get her
opinion about whether Phil and Bronco Henry ever consummated their
affection. Proulx assured them that Savage's poetic description of
foliage in a pertinent passage contains all the coded references anyone
who knows coded references would need to understand that of course they
got it on. Apparently such subjects were not discussed openly in novels
when this one was written. The book doesn't mention any muscle
magazines.
It's quite a story and I thought the book was well worth my time. Annie
Proulx can't understand and neither can I why the immensely talented
Thomas Savage and his novels are not better known.
0 new messages