Toxic Masculinity and the Male Gaze in The Power of the Dog
The film The Power of the Dog (2021), directed by Jane Campion, follows the story of a cowboy named Phil Burbank in Montana during the early 1900s, which was a time and place in which men were expected to present themselves as ultra-masculine and self-sufficient individuals. The character of Phil exemplifies these traits to the detriment of others in his life. His toxic nature is at the forefront of his personality particularly in how he exhibits his persistent need for control over his brother, George, and his sister-in-law, Rose. The film also addresses the objectification of women by presenting the relationship between George, and his wife Rose Gordon. It brings to light Phil’s noxious personality and how societal norms of what it means to be male reinforce his actions and his behavior towards the people around him. In addition, it captures the inadvertent male gaze in a marital relationship representing the traditional divisions of gender.
The film opens with a shot of cattle butting heads with each other for, what seems to be, the sole reason of trying to find out who the strongest member of the group is. The next shot depicts the character of Phil Burbank in a confident stature, self-assuredly strolling through the barren landscape surrounding the ranch. The choice of juxtaposing these two shots becomes clear when we realize that the cattle are meant to personify Phil’s mentality of trying to remain the alpha of the pack. Phil’s role as the leader of the cowboys is represented in a scene that takes place when the rambunctious group heads to the town bar. Phil is shown at the head of the group directing the others in the way he wants. The other cowboys follow Phil’s every move, from the way he walks to the way he climbs the steps to the bar. They regard Phil as their sole leader, boosting Phil’s notions about himself and fueling his desire to remain at the top position. When George Burbank, Phil’s brother and the owner of the ranch, instructs the cowboys to leave the bar so that they can eat at the local saloon, there is a general murmur but no significant action to heed his words takes place. Phil takes a blunter approach and directly leaves the bar, emasculating George by showing his own silent dominance. The fellow cowhands mention “Boss is leavin”[1] and orderly file out of the bar completely undermining George. This interaction represents the ideals of masculinity that Phil lives by and thoroughly promotes. It relates directly to the distinction made by Susan Bordo in her writing “Reading the Male Body” as she references Aristotle’s observation classifying the male principle as active and assigning passiveness as a feminine quality.[2] The film paints Phil as the active male dominance and George as the more passive brother who is willing to give up his power and authority and remains more complacent in front of the other men. Another scene of significance concerning Phil’s character takes place in the saloon. A group eating at the saloon decides to partake in some merriment and starts to play the piano. This gets on Phil’s nerves and he asks: “Do you mind quietening? We’re eating.”[3] The player disregards Phil’s request and continues playing. Phil enters an episode of tremendous rage and yells “Shut that down, or I will!”[4]. Bordo’s observation of the male desire to not be seen as weak particularly in front of other males is prevalent in this scene.[5] It seems unbearable for Phil that someone disregarded his orders and by doing so undermined his authority in front of the other cowhands. The action of him yelling signals to the group that he means what he says and is willing to take physical action when it comes to getting what he wants. At the same time, his rash behavior reinforces his image in front of the cowboys. The film represents the traditional constructs of gender by depicting Phil as a crude and dominating force of toxic masculinity.
The extent of depicting the binary gender constructs is shown in one of the most significant interactions between Phil and his sister-in-law, Rose. The scene starts off with Rose closing all the doors leading to the piano in the common room. She then starts to play a tune but accidentally plays the wrong note in the middle of the melody. Thinking nothing of it, she starts over and continues to practice her notes. Unknown to her, Phil slips past and quietly climbs the stairs to enter his room. Rose hears the creaking of a door opening in the wind and understands that Phil has entered the house. A grim look emerges on her face as if she is intimated by the mere thought of his presence. She continues to play the song and hears the same tune being played by a banjo. She realizes that Phil is playing the same song on his banjo upstairs. The tension in the scene continues to build each time Rose hits the wrong note and stops playing. With an eerie synchronicity, Phil stops at the exact same time and peers out of his room to maintain a visual on Rose’s actions at the piano. It is clear that his intention is to humiliate Rose for the mistakes she makes. This objective is not fully evident, however, until Rose stops playing completely and Phil expertly plays the entire melody on his banjo. Phil’s goal, at the surface, is to discourage Rose from playing the piano. The deeper meaning of his torment, however, adheres to the Marxist notions of gender inequality as mentioned by Judith Lorber in text “The Social Construction of Gender”. His underlying intention is to demean Rose’s abilities and to make her lose confidence in herself by showing her that he can do anything that she can but in a more advanced manner.[6] The filmmakers manage to build an accumulating sense of pressure with the slow movement of the camera pushing in on Rose, making the frame feel claustrophobic just as Rose begins to feel subdued by Phil. The silences between the music make Rose’s embarrassment even more prominent as she debates whether or not to keep playing. Even though the entire scene does not use a single word of dialogue between the two characters, it sets up a clear power hierarchy in the interaction. Phil’s physical and psychological position is exemplified by his figure towering over that of Rose making her look and feel small compared to him. Even though Phil’s male gaze is not sexualizing the femininity of Rose, it is physically looking down on her competence and ability.[7] Phil’s notions about masculine behavior are reflected in his need for power over everyone else and the need to belittle others, especially those he considers to be weaker than him. The choice to show Rose giving in to Phil’s incessant mistreatment instead of retaliating, characterizes her as a passive being and represents Phil as the dominant force in the relationship. Additionally, it uses narrative elements of gender-ranking thereby depicting the traditional view of gender identity in a male and female binary.
Phil Burbank’s hostile relationship with the people around him is not the only instance of depicting the binary gender roles in the film. There are several moments in which the marital relation between George and Rose follows the notion of the male gaze as described by E. Ann Kaplan in the text “Is the Gaze Male?”. The male gaze is the tendency to sexualize or objectify female characters in film.[8] Even though George might not be guilty of overtly sexualizing Rose, a strong argument can be made for his tendency to objectify her. The most striking example of this is during the scene in which George invites his parents, the Governor, and the Governor’s wife to a party celebrating his marriage to Rose without asking her. Being her husband, George just assumes that Rose will accept his decision. Knowing that Rose can play the piano, George buys her a Mason & Hamlin baby grand piano as a present so that she can play in front of the guests. When Rose realizes what George has done, she protests saying “Oh no, […] it’s too good for me. […] I only know tunes.”[9] George ignores her clear expressions of anxiety at the thought of playing in front of the Governor and says “That’s what I want, tunes. The Governor too. […] We just wanna hear you play Rose.”[10] Since the camera stays on Rose, the audience can immediately discern the look of worry on her face. This is the first instance in which George’s male gaze can be identified. He undermines Rose’s wishes and insists on her playing for the party. He neglects her emotional response of angst and continues to behave as if Rose will do what is expected of her. His behavior is further indisputable during the actual dinner scene. When the guests start pressuring Rose to make her play the piano for them, Rose tries to prevent her public embarrassment insisting that she is “terribly out of practice”[11] and stays firmly in her seat. Her pleas go unheard and the guests stand up and assemble their chairs in front of the piano, as if expecting a concert on the spot. Rose’s continuous attempts at thwarting the persistence of the guests are dissuaded by George. He tells her to “just play anything”[12] and practically forces her out of her chair. However harmless his encouragement might seem to him, George is deaf to Rose’s overtures. In this scenario, Rose is only meant as a form of spectacle for the guests to admire and be entertained by.[13] George’s objectification of Rose is the most blatant depiction of the male gaze in the film. The way in which the scene is constructed and shot makes it feel as if the audience is placed in Rose’s position and is an additional target of the male gaze. When the guests have situated themselves in front of the piano in anticipation, Rose is glued to her seat at the dining table reflecting her absolute dread of playing the piano. In this moment, the camera stays at the table with Rose while George and the guests are blurred in the shallow depth of field. This helps the viewer identify with Rose’s plight especially since her desperate unease is visible. The filmmakers also employ the use of an extreme close-up shot focusing on Rose’s shivering fingers as she tries to play. The physical closeness to her pain feels uncomfortable and strengthens the sentiment of the male gaze by isolating her on a podium. The film furthers the division between the masculine and feminine gender binary by depicting the male gaze and the objectification of a woman by her own husband.
In conclusion, The Power of the Dog tackles the concepts of toxic masculinity, distinctions between active and passive personalities, and the objectification of women via the male gaze. By weaving a narrative amalgamating characters of different backgrounds and dispositions, the filmmakers use internal relationships to represent the traditional formulations of gender as a binary concept.
[1] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[2] Susan Bordo, “Reading The Male Body”, Michigan Quarterly Review 32.4, 1993, 696-737
[3] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[4] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[5] Susan Bordo, “Reading The Male Body”, Michigan Quarterly Review 32.4, 1993, 696-737
[6] Judith Lorber, “The Social Construction of Gender”, Sex and Gender, 1991, 99-105
[7] E. Ann Kaplan, “Is the Gaze Male?”, Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera, 1983, 119-135
[8] E. Ann Kaplan, “Is the Gaze Male?”, Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera, 1983, 119-135
[9] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[10] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[11] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[12] The Power of the Dog (Campion, 2021)
[13] E. Ann Kaplan, “Is the Gaze Male?”, Women and Film: Both Sides of the Camera, 1983, 119-135