The chances of me being able to get into a Western are about as the same as the average person liking Bender’s cooking: Unless there’s something wild and possibly psychedelic is mixed in there, it’s probably not gonna happen. But this is another one of those films that I’ve been hearing a lot of great things about over the last month, and while I’m still going in with a mild disinterest in the genre as a whole, I’m at least willing to give it a chance on its own terms, rather than making it adhere to my own. It coming from a filmmaker as beloved as Jane Campion definitely helps with that, but just bear in mind that I’m not exactly the target audience for such stories. Or, at least, that’s what I thought going into this.
Not even when he was portraying Sherlock Holmes have I seen Benedict Cumberbatch be this much of a dick to everyone within earshot. A ranch owner who… let’s just say he doesn’t approve of his brother (Jesse Plemons)’s wife (Kirsten Dunst), and the extent to which he shows that is impressive in its sheer mean-spiritedness. To say nothing of his relationship with his step-nephew (Kodi Smit-McPhee), which is quite complex in its trajectory but kept making me itchy because this kid is clearly neurodivergent.
But before I get too deep in that old critical fallacy of ‘unlikeable main character = unlikeable movie’, I will admit that what the film is going for in terms of Cumberbatch’s Phil and his larger character arc is quite interesting. It’s a play on notions of traditional masculinity, something the Western genre has always been soaking in, and it makes some intriguing statements without really saying anything that direct.
I’ve mentioned before about the gender politics behind sex, and how it has ‘classically’ been considered a thing that men do to women with any agency ending there, but there’s also a flipside to that where more romantic feelings are involved. Since women are the ones supposedly driven by emotions, the idea of love is likewise thought of as something women do to men, but is never really reciprocated because men don’t function that way. Again, I stress that this is strictly in terms of perceptions, not reality, but it’s a perception that Phil has latched onto with both hands.
Beyond just the standard macho bullshit to do with rassling cattle and calling ‘weak’ people faggots (which has gotten to the point where it makes me laugh more than it offends me in the real world; it’s just too basic to get angry at anymore), there’s a definite primal quality to the scenes where he is by his lonesome. Like he’s trying to get back to some archetypal idea of manhood, where dirt and the smells that accompany it are just signs of one’s own virility (I remember Del Tha Funkee Homosapien writing a song about this back in the day). It’s a psychological retreat, where he can hide his feelings behind a giant wall of machismo so that he won’t get hurt. Again.
And while Dunst’s Rose mainly ends up being the victim of Phil’s vindictiveness, which is a bit disheartening since that’s the extent of her character by the end, the way Smit-McPhee’s Peter affects the story ends up making up for that. He serves as the other side of that same tunnel-vision idea of manliness, as he’s a caring, creative, and preternaturally smart guy who finds himself interested in Phil’s bravado. Their chemistry on-screen shows Campion’s nuanced approach to storytelling at its most vital, leading up to a conclusion that… well, is certainly an interesting take on the ‘killing with kindness’ mantra.
This is an undeniably well-made and presented film, with some really juicy ideas and a pace that manages to draw out the larger points in its own time. But for what it’s ultimately saying (especially with some of the… connotations of who Phil truly is, which harken to one of the more unhelpful attitudes when it comes to combating anti-queer sentiment), it doesn’t feel like it’s making the most of what’s available. I still like it, and it’s great to round off Thomasin McKenzie’s busiest and best year so far, but it feels like a film that is ‘merely’ good, when it has the potential to be truly great. Then again, “it’s good but could be better” is far from the worst reaction I could have had to this.
No comments:
Post a Comment