The Power Of The Dog - Film Review

From critically acclaimed director Jane Campion comes the new ‘it’ oscar-nominated movie of the year, #The Power of The Dog. 

The only thing that the Academy loves more than musicals, is a period drama. And more importantly, a period drama that tells a modern narrative. And it makes sense too. Because there is a unique power in re-visiting the past to show the way into the future. After all, that’s what the purpose of history is, right? To know where we’ve come from so that we know where we’re going.

The Power of The Dog is a magnificent attempt to do this and almost gets it.. till it doesn’t.

The movie is set in a ranch in Montana, the USA of 1925, owned by the rich and respected Burbank family, run by the two sons, the very alpha Phil Burbank (Benedict Cumberbatch), and the older and more open George Burbank (Jesse Plemons). When George falls in love with a poorer widow Rose Gordon (Kirsten Dunst), and brings her home, Phil’s disapproval creates tension in the family, which escalates further when Rose’s son Peter (Kodi Smit McPhee), training to be a surgeon, comes to live with them in the ranch. While shy and effeminate Peter is initially targeted and bullied by the very macho cowboy Phil, over time Phil develops a liking for Peter and takes him under his wing to train him. As Phil’s secret from the past is revealed to Peter, through an accidental discovery during an escapade, they get closer to each other, much to Rose’s dislike, only made worse by her alcoholism, all finally building towards a dramatic though unexpected twist in the end.

The heart of the film is in the right place. The mission is a noble one. The performances by each of the actors are brilliant. And Jane Campion’s grand telling with the sights, the sounds, and the emotions of each character is truly worth applause. For most of the film, we are taken in by the depth of the storytelling, the nuances of the expressions of the actors, the texture of the Montana ranch, and the point-in-time of American history when the urbanization was still relatively new. The many complex layers of social structure in transition are depicted beautifully. The dynamic between the urban Burbank parents and their rural Burbank sons is poignant. The conflict between the naive romantic George and the cynically bitter Phil is poetic. The contrast between the apparently weak and needing-to-be-protected Peter and his quiet-cold-calmness is ominous. And most importantly, the subtle sexuality, the critique of false machismo (indeed the power of the dog), and homophobia, that eventually becomes the central idea is impactful. For all this, The Power of the Dog deserves its place as an Oscar nominee.

But, despite all this, the film misses one important element. A connection to the audience. 

The first half is well made, as we start building our affection for George, as he becomes Rose’s night in shining armor. We start disliking Phil for his overtly derogatory attitude to Peter. We feel sympathy for Rose and Peter, after having lost the man in their house, trying to fend for themselves. But, as the story progresses to reveal more facets of Phil, Rose, and Peter, we lose that bond, not entirely convinced on why these characters are moving in the direction they are. We also get completely consumed by the theatre of the visuals, the close-up treatment of characters and the scenery, the overtly jarring scenes of blood and animals, which, though are nicely done, distract us from building a connection to the story and the characters as they are moving forward. As a result, when the film moves to the twist-in-the-tale climax, instead of going ‘oh wow', we are left somewhere between ‘awe’ and ‘meh’, feeling a disconnect to our own feelings and therefore to the film. 

All in all, not a film for everyone, especially if you’re the one who feels precious about their two hours on the weekend. 

But, if you’re someone like me, trying to catch the oscar films before the awards, to form your own opinion, then go for it. 

I’ve done three so far (Dune, Don’t Look Up), I think another six or seven to go!

The Batman 2022 - Film Review

The beginning of the next telling of our most popular DC superhero. 

For most of our generation the original Batman era was the 1990s Tim Burton Joel Schumacher series, with Jack Nicholson’s defining Joker and Michael Keaton passing the baton to Val Kilmer and George Clooney even, and a popular star-cast ranging from Uma Thurman (Ivy), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Iceman), Jim Carrey (Riddler), Danny Devito (Penguin), Chris O Donnel (Robin), Alicia Silverstone (Bat Girl), Michelle Pfeifer (Catwoman). It was the perfect “pop” Batman series, for the “pop” time of our lives. 

As we went through the next decade of a self-doubting internal journey of re-discovering our society and ourselves through Nolan’s interpretation of the dark knight for our dark times (2005-2012), that became the defining iconography of Batman for times to come. Typical Nolan.

However, the decade that followed (2010’s) belonged to Marvel and as MCU went from strength to strength, DC lost the plot and reflected a confused identity through what was arguably a confusing time (Trump, Brexit, right-wing, Covid, BLM, and whatnot). With the exception of the first Wonder Woman, all of the others (Batman vs. Superman, Justice Leagues, WW84) failed to meet the mark. 

Which brings us to today, as a new decade emerges out of the shambles of the last 2 years. Arguably, one of the darkest times in recent history, for one of the darkest superheroes we will always have. 

Against this backdrop, The Batman 2022 largely hits the spot. 

The plot this time is around Riddler (Paul Dano) as the main villain killing the corrupt high and mighty of Gotham, exposing their deceit and their failed promises of ‘achche din’. As Batman gets caught deeper in the maze that Riddler has set up, Commissioner Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) and Cat woman (Zoe Kravitz) partner him in solving the puzzles, revealing secrets from the past and the present linking the Wayne family, Carmine Falcone, Maroni’s and the Penguin (Collin Farell), finally leading towards a seemingly futile but inevitable journey of saving Gotham from itself.

Director Matt Reeves paints a new vision for Batman. And for that, the film is worth watching. More importantly, it sets a good precedent to see how this series develops with the next few movies. The story is nothing to write home about, the actors do a decent job, though nothing spectacular, and the action is engaging but again nothing we’ve not seen before. But what makes the film is the treatment of it, which shows the director’s ambition. It is the cinematography, the camera movement, and the music that come together to create the impact in the film. 

There is an authenticity about the Gotham that Reeves creates, which is appealing with all its flaws and its darkness. It’s a Gotham that feels real and not a faraway fictional city from the comic books. The young Batman, who is both naive at times and cynical at others, feels more human than a superhero. He is vulnerable, needs help, and gets hurt.  No grand hero, no big happy ending, no applause, no angst, no victory, no heroism. Batman 2022, is in sync with the truth of our times. No one man can save our world, we all need to play our part, as we emerge from the broken pieces of our lives, and re-make our own Gotham, one day at a time. 

And to the burning question, does Robert Pattinson make a good Batman? 

The answer simply, is that this is an entirely irrelevant question. 

For in this new telling of the superhero, it almost does not seem to matter. Matt Reeves’s vision dominates the film and all actors and acts are just mere vehicles to deliver this. 

All in all, it’s a promising start to the next DC chapter. 

With no more MCU to compete with, here’s the possibility of a fresh beginning for the DC franchise. A new Batman, a new vision, a new start. 

Don’t waste it DC and Warner Bros.

The Fame Game Season 1, Netflix, Feb 2022

Fanboy Alert!

For as long as I can remember I have been in love with Madhuri Dixit. But looking back, I now realize that it’s because she was THE queen of Bollywood for the youngest of my years. From my pre-teen years (Tezaab was 1986) to my end of college years (Dil Toh Pagal Hai was 1997), MD, as we called her then, was the most attractive star that gave us many dhak-dhak moments growing up. She was beautiful, talented, and danced like no one has been able to ever since. Like all of our first love, she will continue to have the most special place in our hearts. 

But this review is not about Madhuri. It’s about her latest and after a long time (almost a decade or more) a proper Madhuri content to watch and enjoy. The talent shows with her as the judge and Kalank don’t count!

#thefamegame is a full-on Madhuri spectacle, where she plays the lead protagonist, superstar Anamika Anand, who suddenly disappears after the latest award night show, leaving her family destroyed, her fans in despair, and the police in circles trying to solve the mystery. As the story moves in the present and the flashback (with a run-up of events leading to her disappearance), many characters are built, many secrets are revealed and a plot of who-could-have-kidnapped-Anamika-Anand enfolds. The suspense side of the story runs in parallel to the emotional side of the story, where her perfect-public image is contrasted to her completely imperfect and almost dysfunctional personal life. A troubled marriage, troubled mother, troubled children, troubled ex-lover, and even troubled fans, all intertwine with each other to create an almost-engaging story till the end of the 8th and final episode. 

Overall, it’s a decent OTT watch (not one of the better ones), but for fanboys like me, with Madhuri in every scene, it’s completely worth the money.

Madhuri is a dream, flowing through her role effortlessly. She looks aged but still beautiful, with an elegant presence dominating every scene. Sanjay Kapoor as a shadow of himself is able to hold on to his own, well just about. Manav Kaul, as Anamika’s ex-lover, gives a decent performance. Suhasini Muley as the star-mother is, as always, really good. And the daughter, played by Muskaan Jaferi is decent too. But, apart from Madhuri, the two characters that are a discovery in their brilliant performances are Lakshvir Saran, who plays Avi, the conflicted and angsty son, and Rajshri Deshpande, who plays Shobha Trivedi, the inspector investigating the case. Both play slightly complex characters, dealing with multiple emotions and they both deliver and how.  It is an absolute joy to watch them perform their characters.

Produced by Karan Johar, directed by Bejoy Nambiar and Karishma Kohli, there are some nice progressive narratives throughout the story. Around women bearing the unsaid burden of keeping the family together, even though they may be stars and the breadwinners of the family. Around them finding the strength to liberate themselves from the traps laid by society to discover and chase what they want. Around accepting the sexuality of youngsters, who are finding themselves, in a society that still is un-inclusive at its core.

In a way, it feels like OTT storytelling has decided to take a stand of tellling mainly ‘feel-bad’ stories. We know that Bollywood did a little too much of ‘feel-good’, but I’m sure the OTT platforms can find a middle path, without making all Hindi stories take us to the ‘geharaiyaan’ of despair all the time.

But, where the series really misses out is in not having a clear vision for the story. As we get to the later episodes, the story starts falling into some predictable patterns, and to cater to a thriller genre, complicates the plot with diversions on the narrative. Some unnecessary deaths, unnecessary betrayals, and unnecessary twists. Even though the mystery of why and how Anamika disappears is quite good when it’s revealed.

The other disappointing thing about the series is that it’s a very insider-Bollywood storytelling, many times making a commentary on the lives of successful celebrities. As a result, it becomes a very narrow inside story, that beyond a point fails to make a strong connection to the plot and the characters. 

And finally, the main big missed opportunity is the narrowness of the vision of leveraging an actor like Madhuri Dixit. It’s like Karan Johar and the new age directors can’t see Madhuri as anything other than a ‘star of yesteryears’. In fact, that’s the most disappointing narrative of everything she has done in the last decade. True that Madhuri was a star. But the reason she was a star is because of her talent. It’s time for a storyteller to truly see beyond the chaka-chaund-ness of Madhuri Dixit, to see her for who she is and what she can bring to good story-telling. A little bit like what Anamika Anand herself keeps looking for, throughout the series. In that, then, is the supreme irony, that the plot of the series itself is not able to do what it preaches. 

I still stay in hope that a scriptwriter, a director, and a producer will find that soon enough. 

Till then, we wait for the second season of The Fame Game, because yes, season 1 does end with a cliffhanger. 

What did you expect? It's Netflix!