First published in 1967, Thomas Savage’s Western novel The Power of The Dog has made an exceptional comeback as a featured film directed by Jane Campion in 2021. The film rapidly became one of Netflix's most popular, garnering 12 Academy Award nominations and positive reviews. The Power of the Dog depicts the story of the Burbank brothers, George and Phil, who moved to Montana around 1900 to live and work on the ranch their affluent parents had purchased. Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch), the oldest brother, is intelligent and refined, but he enjoys ranch life's hard daily labor. George (Jesse Plemons), dubbed "Fatso" by Phil, lacks Phil's analytical mind and breadth of information. The brothers, now in their forties, continue to share their childhood bedroom until George marries Rose (Kirsten Dunst), the widow of the town doctor and the mother of a teenage son named Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee).
RELATED:The 2022 Oscar Nominated Scores, Ranked, from ‘Dune’ to ‘Encanto’
Thus, the movie's success has brought people back to the book. There are always numerous creative decisions to be made in the translation of a book to cinema regarding detail changes, minor characters, etc. With that in mind, these are 10 significant distinctions between The Power of the Dog book vs. movie. The rest of the article contains spoilers. Thus, consider them before proceeding any further.
Johnny Gordon
The main discrepancy between Savage's and Campion's interpretations of events is Rose's husband and Peter's father. All we know about Rose's spouse in the film is that he was a doctor who committed suicide and their son, Peter, discovered his body.
The entire tale of Rose's relationship with her deceased husband is told in the book as a prelude to her relationship with George. Johnny was a well-intentioned but useless man who suffered from pride, making him exactly the type of person Phil despises.
Phil’s Role in Johnny Gordon’s Death
Backstories are never mentioned in movies, putting the audience in the dark about whether or not they exist. The only information we have about Johnny Gordon's final days in the film is that he was inebriated and committed himself by hanging. We are unaware of why he did what he did.
However, following a series of unpleasant interactions with Phil, Johnny began drinking and eventually committed suicide in the book when he felt like he was painted a failure in front of his son. The book's narrative gives us a more precise and apparent reason why Johnny chose death and more reasons for Peter's vengeance in the end, given that Phil was responsible for his father's death.
Rose’s Confrontation
Rose deludes herself in the book into thinking she starts drinking to deal with the migraines Phil is causing her and gain the confidence to confront him about why he is so hostile toward her. When she does, she imagines various scenarios in which they can overcome their differences and treat her better. Instead, Phil tells her that he despises her for stealing his brother's liquor. Her delusional confidence was shattered instantly and drove her deeper into drinking and despair.
We witness Rose's heavy drinking without a specific confrontation scene in the movie. Nonetheless, with no background story provided by Johnny's past, the missing scene does not affect the plot significantly.
Peter’s Portrayal
Peter's merciless precision with slaughtering chickens and rabbits, and the way he does experiments with them, is hinted at in the movie but constantly mentioned in the novel. In the film, it's easily explained away by the fact that he wants to be a doctor, which means he'll have to dissect animals.
Nevertheless, something is unsettling about it in the book. Knowing that hurting or experimenting on animals as a youngster is a sign of psychopathic tendencies may exacerbate the problem. Perhaps Savage is attempting to draw similarities between Phil and Peter, who are social outcasts. The truth is that they are more alike than they are different, and this is greatly reflected in the novel.
Phil’s Sexual Orientation
In the book, there's a mountain of evidence that queerness is at the heart of Phil and Bronco Henry's relationship and how Peter can ultimately manipulate Phil. That also implies that casual heterosexual readers of The Power of the Dog could think it's nice and sweet how Phil honored his cowboy mentor's legacy long after he died.
RELATED:Sam Elliott’s 'The Power of The Dog' Opinions Proves the Film’s Point
Yet, the film considerably clarified ambiguity with Phil showcased Bronco Henry’s saddle in his barn. Campion manages to make this alteration work because establishing a shrine-like to Bronco Henry signals that Phil seems preoccupied with his former mentor in a way that might not be "normal."
The Mention of Anthrax
Campion also includes numerous references to anthrax throughout the film to presage Phil's death. Such as during Phil and Peter's chat in the barn about how the calves die around here, or at the start when Phil warns one of his cowboys about a dead cow nearby that may transmit anthrax.
In the novel, anthrax is only referenced in the last paragraph, which reveals how Peter got the upper hand in Phil’s game by sending him strips of rawhide infected with anthrax, knowing that Phil's injured hand would absorb the sickness and kill him.
Separated Dinner Parties
The visit of the senior Burbanks and the dinner party with the Governor and his wife occur at the same time in the film, most likely due to pacing issues. This merge slimmed down the complex relationship of the family to unnoticeable. The viewers only receive a hint of it when the elder Burbanks return for Phil's funeral at the end, and George invites them to Christmas, which implies that they were away primarily because of Phil.
Meanwhile, the book's dinner party with the Governor effectively conveys the novel's emphasis on class and self-worth. The Burbank family meal, on the other hand, emphasizes the family's difficulties and tensions.
Phil Didn’t Show Up
Another difference from the Governor's dinner is that Phil refuses to attend in the book. Phil's rejection is a jab at the Governor, a scolding to his brother for being concerned with appearances, yet another example of Phil's refusal to submit to social niceties.
RELATED:‘The Power of the Dog’ Review
However, in the film, Phil arrives late after disputing with his brother in the barn, far more unsubtle than any exchange in the book. By showing up and exacerbating Rose's absolute failure as a hostess, this alteration heightened the already-existed awkwardness of the dinner party.
Missing The Native American Storyline
The Native American man and his son appeared at the film's end in a role played by a man coded as Jewish in the book. These two are solely looking to buy hides, which George and Phil normally burn.
However, in the novel, this man has a backstory with his family residing near the Burbank ranch, but they were forcibly removed from their home and sent to a reservation. His son wasn’t aware of his people’s former glory but only his father’s battered-down-by-the-government image. Thus, the father decided to take his child to their former home, attempting to honor their heritage. This storyline serves as a subtle hint to the fatherly pride that reminds viewers of Johnny Gorgon and how cowboys were observed as heroes but often perpetrated heinous atrocities against Native Americans.
Phil & Peter’s Final Night
In the book, Peter offers Phil the strips of hides he's been saving to finish braiding the rope Phil intends to give, and he agrees to stay up with Phil until it's finished. The next thing we know that Phil didn’t’ arrive for breakfast in the morning, signaling the start of Phil's untimely illness and death.
We stay with Peter and Phil while Phil finishes the rope in the film. The scene is rife with hidden and implied meaning, especially in light of Phil's close relationship with Bronco Henry and how Peter had gained complete control of the situation.
NEXT:8 Best Westerns By Non-American Directors to Watch After 'The Power Of The Dog'
