Власть пса (The Power of the Dog)

один из них

 

жуткая тягомотина

я матрицу месяц добить не могу, вот где тягомотина

крутое кино или достойный наследник снотворного Вильнёва, от которого уже через 10 секунд засыпаешь?????????

Первое.

крутое кино или достойный наследник снотворного Вильнёва, от которого уже через 10 секунд засыпаешь?????????

Самый тягучий Вильнёв на фоне сабжа анстапбл адреналин раш.

Какая-то двухчасовая депрессия. Драма должна быть тоньше, без всяких наяриваний на седла и веревки, а тут все жирно как-то, плюс суицидальная музыка, все медленно, сюжета мало, поэтому какое-то невообразимое уныние и тлен. В плохом смысле. Алкашка с вечно кислой миной, абьюзер-гей, жеманный маньяк, дурачки, все время спрашивающие "а что ты видишь? а что ты будешь делать? а зачем это?" и призрак какого-то легендарного Бронко Генри И среди этой дурки вечный дурачек Племмонс Но кадры красивые и твист неплохой.

Там в конце дергалка для шторы, лол, вы че-то гоните со смыслами)

майкл сичински для cinema scope

The Power of the Dog is an exceedingly Freudian film: it seethes with unconscious impulses that are utterly foreign to Bresson’s anti-psychological cinema. In fact, the best comparison might be to Douglas Sirk, whose use of emotionally weighted props—the miniature oil derrick Dorothy Malone fondles in Written on the Wind (1956), or the rejected Black baby doll in Imitation of Life (1959)—swerves quite clear of rank symbolism, instead providing something akin to Walter Benjamin’s “dialectical image,” a concrete artifact of historical relations.

 

At the same time, The Power of the Dog is driven by Oedipal desires and inarticulate impulses, and in this regard it’s necessary to consider Freud’s original formulation of the fetish object. In his remarkably brief 1927 essay on fetishism, Freud explains that the sexual fixation on objects is the result of a disavowal mechanism, whereby the fetishist denies the horror of castration anxiety by substituting a given prop (shoes, lingerie, even the lover’s nose) for the “missing” phallus. It’s certainly notable that the opening passages of Savage’s novel provide a terse but suggestive description of rancher Phil Burbank castrating bulls, making a quick incision and yanking the testicles right out.

 

There is such a castration scene in the film as well, but, unlike Savage, Campion does not make it a controlling metaphor: it happens near the one-hour mark, and she folds it into the overall fabric of the work such that it simply resembles another facet of cowboy work. But more than this, the film version of The Power of the Dog expands this idea of the fetish, distributing its energy among many different objects. Following Freudian logic, Campion’s film is characterized by the substitution of objects, and, in keeping with the director’s feminist perspective on dysfunctional masculinity, the “real” object of castration (the bull’s discarded nuts) carries no essential weight—it’s just a thing, positioned in a field of other, equally laden things.

In her book Between Men, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick made a distinction between homosexuality and homosociality: the first denotes love between men, the second the fraternity of an all-male realm. Sedgwick understood that these spheres often intersected, but Campion’s film is a bit more radical, effacing the boundary almost completely. It is no accident that interactions between brothers, fathers and sons, or male bosses and their younger subordinates all seem to occupy a nebulous, indefinable zone. Just as the interactions between Phil and George resemble those of a married couple, and Rose, especially when drunk, treats Peter as her “man,” the evolving bond between Phil and Peter is never explicitly defined. If we interpret it as fatherly affection, we are no doubt being naive; if we immediately understand it as a pederast grooming a vulnerable young boy, we risk projecting our own fears and perversions onto figures from the past. By making certain core relationships undecidable, Campion not only offers us a richer, more complex film text, but also displays a remarkable understanding of the unconscious.

 

In other words, Phil, Rose, and Peter are not simply concealing their desires and motivations—rather, they themselves are not fully cognizant of them. While this is very clear in the case of Rose, whose psyche is degraded by neurosis and drink, Peter’s presence in Phil’s life produces conflicting reactions. He mercilessly teases Peter at first, perhaps seeing in the boy his own worst fears, a negative imago for gay identity. But eventually, he sees Peter as an opportunity—though for what is never completely clear.

While I suppose the film could be construed as a referendum on toxic masculinity, I’m not at all sure that this is what’s going on here. Campion is an artist who has long been deeply committed to examining patriarchy in its various guises: Harvey Keitel’s arrogant cult deprogrammer in Holy Smoke! (1999); Mark Ruffalo’s horndog police detective in In the Cut (2003), devoted to uncovering the “truth” of female sexual deviance; and, of course, male power in its most naked form with the act of femicide at the core of her TV series Top of the Lake (2013/2017). Of course, Campion’s most direct statement on patriarchy and women’s oppression may still be The Piano (1993), a film that sentences its heroine to silence but reconfigures that voicelessness as defiance, a refusal to allow her subject position to be known, categorized, or exploited.

Compared with other Campion films, the relative marginality of The Power of the Dog’s primary woman character is rather unusual. But, in taking on the trappings of the Western, Campion seems to be tackling patriarchy from the other direction: How are men like Phil made, she asks, and what kind of man will Peter turn out to be? In considering the etiology of American male privilege, The Power of the Dog not only diagnoses the dysfunctions of classical masculinity, but also suggests that, under better circumstances, it might have all been different. Then again, much as Paul Thomas Anderson did in There Will Be Blood, Campion depicts these dangerous male neuroses, and the perversion of fatherhood and kinship, as concomitant with the establishment of Gilded Age capitalism.

And again, like those other films that share in the project of demythologizing the American West, The Power of the Dog attends to the land itself, reminding us of its permanence in the face of transitory human occupation. The cinematic consideration of the landscape, after all, is the most radical, progressive aspect of John Ford’s essential works. Monument Valley stands as a silent, impassive witness to westward expansion and white supremacy, rebuking it with a sublimity that impresses itself upon Ford’s characters even as their actions suggest the land is little more than a challenge of manhood.

 

In The Power of the Dog, the landscape is similarly foreign to the human plight: long shots of the Montana hills punctuate moments of crisis in the film, almost like a Greek chorus of utter indifference. But the ability to see the land, to bend it to one’s desires and imagination, is a line of continuity linking Bronco Henry, Phil, and finally Peter.

 

Campion intimates that there is a thin line between reverence for the landscape and the masculinist/capitalist drive to subdue it, to reduce it to a field of dreams. And the land, like the other objects of negotiation between Phil and Peter, is not simply handed down—the psychic register of the fetish object is altered in the exchange. There will be no assignation on the hilltop. The saddle will go unpolished. The rope, having done its job, is hidden away under the bed, removed from circulation. However it may have happened—naivete, manipulation, revenge, or even another, inchoate form of perversion—Peter breaks the cycle. He is not an object fetishist; he is a user of tools.

Сценарий

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Power-Of-The-Dog-Read-The-Screenplay.pdf

Тягучее кино. Местами скучновато смотреть. Если победит в ЛФ, то и ладно, все равно чуть лучше Номадленда.

помните ощушения от прочтения преступления и наквзания? я примерно такой кайф испытал

так у нас крамольная мысль. номаленд херня

По ходу фильма это неочевидно, но сценарий у фильма очень приличный; просто он такой, как пазл складывается только с финальной сценой. В итоге понимаешь, что впринципе ничего лишнего не было, эту историю надо было рассказывать именно так, несмотря на некоторую занудность местами, послевкусие ее с лихвой перекрывает.

Только Племонс, кмк, инороден, совсем уж очевидный персонаж-функция, можно было получше проработать.

"Власть пса" гораздо более watchable' date=' чем "Номадлэнд", разве нет...[/quote']

 

Примерно одинаково. Но сабж чуть лучше.

Почему фильм "Власть пса" обречен на премию "Оскар"

Текст: Валерий Кичин

===

В отзывах на книгу попадалось утверждение,

Книгу не читала, вероятно это просто догадка. В фильме это никак не обозначено, но мотивы Питера явно выросли из истории с отцом. Мать на верном пути к петле (поэтому его действия можно понять), и именно тема веревки рефреном тянется через весь фильм. Почему там все плетут веревки? Питер забрал подарок Фила, но зачем ему вообще веревка? Да, и обычный шнурок для шторы в таком контексте выглядит очень аутентично.

Если есть злодей в фильме, то он точно не один. Если справедливость возмездия как-то согласуется с библейским «избавь меня от власти пса», то чем был этот флирт с сигаретой, если не садизмом?

Фильм неясен до крайности, смыслы плотно задрапированы метафорами и открытыми вопросами. Не уверена, что такие фильмы должны брать главные награды. Слишком много кривых путей для толкования истории, которая, даже если и может увлечь с первого захода, слишком многое оставляет для повторного осмысления, что не каждому очень то и нужно.

Посмотрел с интересом. Конечно тонкий фильм, при этом очень угрюмый и болезненный. Отличные актерские работы, визуал, музыка.

Сама история неоднозначная, с множеством интерпретаций.

В конечно итоге послевкусие - грусть, печаль.

И что опять оскар?

Вот почему мне больше нравится, когда оскар берет Зеленая книга, это добрый и позитивный фильм, который затрагивает важные темы.

Здесь мотив тот же, только через мясорубку.