T-Magazine
Next Story

Toxicity makes the man

Through blood and tears, The Power of the Dog pushes the conformity that society has set for what it means to be a man

By Khizer Asif |
PUBLISHED January 30, 2022
RAWALPINDI:

A first in a long time for director Jane Campion, almost ten years since her last film and The Power of the Dog, takes the audience through a reflection of toxic masculinity and the archaic—rather ludicrous—behaviours like name-calling, taunting and belittlement. Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Jesse Plemons, Kristen Dunst and Kodi Smit-McPhee, the film explores how such behaviours from those who portray themselves as manly cause up a storm whenever they feel their manhood is under threat. This reactionary becomes the reason for their downfall, and analysing through their belligerence and bravado, these acts of manhood reveal a more demented emotion and rationality. The film plays with the cowboy's social binary, an exemplar of the ruggedness and leadership of manhood, where the ruggedness becomes hostile, and the leadership is more tyrannical.

Spindly feats

Phil (Cumberbatch) visualises masculinity, yet his reasons for his cruel behaviour are about something rather—closeted. He shows a great amount of bravado, and with every story and joke he says is like him convincing not only to his listeners but also to himself that everything says is a testament to him being a man. Just over a decade, he and his brother George (Plemons) have been running their family farm, and through their efforts, the farm has become more successful than ever, where they are considered the richest among the farmers in their area. George plays a more reserved approach to his life, with him being more reactionary to his brother's antics and demeanour. Phil needs George in order to convince others of the feats of masculinity that he says through his stories and jokes. Phil's need to fit into an over-the-top narrative and use his brother as a means to create it is shown through his toast to their mentor Bronco Henry, where he says, “So, to us brothers, Romulus and Remus, and the wolf who raised us.” Phil constantly struggles with the need to compare himself with someone else. This struggle is shown with how he rarely calls his brother by his name, instead opting to call him through nicknames like Georgie Boy or, most commonly: Fatso. This reliance and need becomes a crutch for Phil, and when George marries Rose (Dunst), things become more complicated with Rose’s son, Peter (McPhee), coming into the picture.

Phil’s anger and frustration that George had once faced are transferred onto Peter, who represents a blossoming boy, symbolised with the paper flowers he made for the dining tables. The viewers see the seriousness in Phil and the self-contained nature of George, drawing a comparison of the two in the beginning; however, the comparison of Phil to Peter becomes ever more prevalent. It's disappointing seeing how Phil treats those around him, yet this represents the hypocrisy that he lives. This hypocrisy is first pointed out after Phil mocks Peter (calling him a woman) for making paper flowers for the dining table. Yet Peter’s reason is compassionate where he had made those flowers as a remembrance of the flower shop that his mother once ran, Phil ignores this importance. After this interaction, Peter twirls a hula-hoop around his waist and then cuts to Phil twirling a chair on the ground. This juxtaposition shows the hypocrisy of Phil, where he once mocked Peter for his paper flowers is now almost covertly playing around like him but with a chair. This name-calling isn't only reserved for Peter and George, wherein a later scene (after hearing about George's marriage to Rose), Phil is seen cursing out a horse, repeatedly calling it a ‘bitch.’

Muddy ponds

Through his quick-tongued and malevolent personality, Phil is battling with others and with himself as well. It is the role of the cowboy that Phil finds himself constantly struggling to validate about himself. Phil is followed by his fellow cowboys, who treat him as their role model, and when Phil is peering out towards the mountains near the ranch, the others ask Phil why he looks there every day; what does he see? The rustling of cattle, watching from a distance, the dirt-covered clothes, and the coarse personality are the bindings Phil employs in his façade, typically seen through Old West films and stories. Yet it is through the usage of mud as an extended metaphor the film leaves the viewer seeing the mud as paint to cover secrets, and Phil uses this to conceal his homosexuality.

As the movie progresses, the metaphor of mud develops, with it first representing hard work which is seen through the ranch work. Although, the audience isn't the only ones aware of the importance of mud where Phil literally rubs it all over his body. The mud serves as armour for Phil, which paints him into his ideal man. This covering in mud equates to a dog rolling in mud, a connection to the movie's title. This relationship can be best seen in the scenes in the secret clearing with a pond. From here, the audience sees a de-armoured Phil, who is treating the area as a haven for himself. In the first scene of Phil in the glade, he strips down and starts to rub mud all over his body (armouring up) and then jumps into the pond. His interaction within this place is ritualistic, especially how he treats a particular scarf. This haven is like Phil's closet.

From the societal perspective, they treat mud as a badge of honour for those who work, as being muddy is a sign of a man hard at work. Mud is all over Phil's body, and when his brother asks him to wash up for an important party with the governor, Phil takes this request as an afront to his manhood and refuses to come to the party. Although Phil comes towards the end of the party, still muddy and angry over the request to bathe, funnily enough, the governor compliments the mud-bound Phil, saying that dirt is ‘honest dirt.’ The dirty Phil is extolled, a stark contrast to Rose, who is cleaned up and dressed in white.

Challenging man

 

The bullying done by Phil towards Rose has gotten so bad that it causes her to become bed-bound and develop a drinking problem from the amount of stress she had accumulated through the constant derision. For Phil, Rose is the wedge between his control over George and the estate. He uses any opportunity to belittle her to widdle down her confidence, thus driving her out of the ranch. It is a toxic environment that Phil has created for Rose. When she was practising the piano for the party (Phil dispassionately calls it "Pinano") and was then interrupted by Phil outclassing her on his banjo, playing the same as she plays it. When Phil arrives at the end of the party, he asks about how the dancing and “pinano” playing, which was a snide comment to Rose, knowing well that he had prevented her from practising her piece. He then acts shocked when told she couldn’t play her music, “You didn’t play? You sure did practice a terrible lot.”

It is his way of calling out on her inadequacy, harassment and micro-aggression are found through his conversations with his brother and the other cowboys.

However, if he isn’t mocking Rose, he is then mocking her son, Peter, and enables his other cowboys to join in harassing the kid. Peter is mild-mannered and educated were; in Phil's case, he is temper-prone but also educated (studied at Yale in fact), which begs the question of why he plays this charade of an uneducated fool? Phil awards his triumph as a rancher through the help and mentorship from his dearly departed friend, Bronco Henry. As described by Phil, Henry is a person who exemplifies manliness, and without him, Phil couldn't be the man he is now. Yet as it is soon found out by Peter while exploring Phil's haven (unbeknownst to Phil), he finds a box filled with magazines depicting posing naked men, revealing a side of Henry that is never talked about in Phil's stories about him.

Feedback

This film delves into issues of toxic masculinity and the harm that it carries. Campion creates a masterful adaption of the 1967 novel by Thomas Savage, who got his experience working at a ranch in Montana, adding the issues he faced as a closeted gay man. The story ends tragically, yet the audience can't help but sympathise with Phil, as he became this kind of man from his upbringing. In its sensuality and rhythm, the film produces something that harbours deeper connotations about the men produced by society. The coarseness and rigid behaviour are more about hiding insecurities and the fear of appearing less than they want to feel. This movie is for those wishing to see a representation of hypocritical masculinity and the self-defeating attitudes of those like Phil. There are moments that could make some audience members uncomfortable, but as per the characteristic of Campion's storytelling, it serves as a sober truth that we all need to face.